MBB: USA South Conference

[CNU85]

Well i really hope GC wins, but CNU.

Narch,

Is it just me, or do these GC guys use a different language.

And at least BBallguy didn't use "granite"...then you'd be a "granite tool"

[CNU85]

What's up with notamensa?  I went back to catch up on posts and he's listed as "guest" or something?  Tough it out killer and get back on the board. 

as rikki tikki said....."whammy" he's gone.

he'll be back...i quit once....it was fun

[SU97]

ok...i know you've all been waiting for this

here are my pvr values and rankings for each individual player (using conference only stats) - i've split them into groups of 5

here is the pvr formula - (ppg+rpg+spg)*1.5 + (apg+bpg)*2 - (topg)*1.5 = PVR

if you don't like the formula, make your own - it may be flawed, but it's well thought out and i've actually utilized input from a number of coaches and members of this and the odac board to develop this formula

Finally the PVR formula. The gospel of Narch. 

This is the only formula that makes sense on the entire board.  I think that based on the formula and the AU-GC co-champ, that Bright should probably get POTY.  JLawrence is at the top of the heap, but SU has struggled a tad this year (so take him off the list).  Under the same logic NCWC ended up in 6th place so Hall has no business being POTY (although I am not saying he isn't a great player - he is definately a very talented player and torched the Hornets).  The CNU guys had some nice stats but I don't think they lived up to expectations and their 3rd place finish costs either guy a shot at POTY. Fawehinmi's falls under the same reasoning as JLawrence.  That leads us to the second group, and the FC guys should get dropped because of their 5th place finish.  Which leaves us with Bright, who was the top GC player this year according the PVR, and from what I saw in person. 

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

Narch-

I believe the NCAA looks at your last ten games.  If not at the d3 level there is always talk at the d1 level.  The last 10 games are part of selection criteria.

I believe the only problem with you formula is that it is missing how well they shoot. You can have 500 pts but only make 32% or you can have 400 pts and shot 40% or any combination.  I feel it is too incomplete. Its good, but its missing something. If you want a formula that is flawed use any of these http://www.eba-stats.com/form/table_revis.htm. 

I have used a combination of the first two for years but haven't applied it to the conference. I don't have the time to apply it to everyone.

[narch]

I believe the NCAA looks at your last ten games.  If not at the d3 level there is always talk at the d1 level.  The last 10 games are part of selection criteria.

not in d3...qowi and regional rankings, my friend

If you want a formula that is flawed use any of these http://www.eba-stats.com/form/table_revis.htm. 

why would i want a flawed formula?

tbps is actually relatively close to pvr when you look at it closely and analyze the relative valuation of the variables - i disagree with (-1) for a personal foul...there are times when fouling is a good thing, and if you're playing intense defense, you're going to pick up some fouls...why should you be punished?  maybe if you took off a point for each disqualification, but not for each personal foul - the other thing i really disagree with is (+1) for an assist...every assist leads to at least 2 points and should be at least as valuable as points - tbps also makes no concession for blocks...why?

rip is equally as bad - what is an offensive fault forced?

I have used a combination of the first two for years but haven't applied it to the conference. I don't have the time to apply it to everyone.

i'd like to see the combination formula that you're using and compare it to pvr

I believe the only problem with you formula is that it is missing how well they shoot. You can have 500 pts but only make 32% or you can have 400 pts and shot 40% or any combination.  I feel it is too incomplete. Its good, but its missing something.

i worked fg% into the earlier versions of the formula and it really skewed the formula toward the big men, since they typically shoot better - i believe leroy has a formula which has different values by position (post, wing, guard...i think) - if i'm not mistaken, he pm'd me his formula last year  - for my purposes, this formula works just fine...it's been fine-tuned over the course of about 5 years with lots of input from people whose knowledge of the game i trust and respect, and it's been met with approval from almost everyone - there is no statistical measure that will ever be perfect, though

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

Narch-
You are a trip.  What is your job? Are you in Quality Control?  Are you a Lawyer? (These are rhetorical questions.)  If it isn't yours or isn't anything you like then it isn't good at all.  That first one has been around since 1966.  I believe many have accepted it.  Otherwise it wouldn't be used or adapted for a 3 point shot.  Faults, I believe are charges taken I have seen that one on different website and they called it charges.  I can't see why you would think -1 for a foul is wrong.  I see your point but if you are playing intense defense but I would disagree with even having it in there because fouls are sometimes not in a player's control.  As for instance at the end of the game, sometimes you need to foul.  Back to the -1 you are cheating your team out at least 1 point for an offensive foul and giving the other team a possibilty of 1 point for a defensive foul.  I agree should be +2 for an assist, but you are "spliting" points you took part in the teammate in scoring at least two points so you get a point for that.  My best assumption from that.

As for my combo formula.  I have to go look through a bunch of spreadsheets to find it.  A reason why I haven't applied it is the fact charges taken aren't on the stats.  Numbers would be lower without it.

I still think fg% should be in the formula.  You are right post often have higher FG% yet lower FT% sometimes not the most points.  Guards have a lower FG% higher 3FG% more points and higher FT%

Why FT% I think effective FTs/FT% should be used in a player evaulation.  Four factors that must be in player evaulation also apply to the 4 factors of team evaluation. 4 Factors are:

1. Effective Shooting
2. "Taking care of the Ball"
3. OR=Offensive Rebounds=More Points
4.  FTs, FTs, FTs
(Sorry I had to make it look exciting, so you all would enjoy it)
FMI go here: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm

Narch create a formula based on that.  I would say that isn't flawed.  Just by looking at those 4 factors Lenny Hall is POTY (Without looking at statisitcs)

[CNU85]

4 Factors are:

1. Effective Shooting
2. "Taking care of the Ball"
3. OR=Offensive Rebounds=More Points
4.  FTs, FTs, FTs
(Sorry I had to make it look exciting, so you all would enjoy it)
FMI go here: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm

Narch create a formula based on that.  I would say that isn't flawed.  Just by looking at those 4 factors Lenny Hall is POTY (Without looking at statisitcs)

Based on those factors Shaquile (or however you spell it) O'Neill sucks! Which I tend to agree with....the man has zero basketball skills. He's just big and in the way and thus it's easy for him to get "stats"....but even I challenge the big man to a skills contest....dribbling, shooting, passing, etc. Heck even Captj could bounce more FTs in than Shaq.

[CNU85]

I'm starting a campaign!! anyone at CNU reading this, pass it along...from a Vice Admiral level contributor -

Put in #24!!!!! We want Kraut!!!

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

4 Factors are:

1. Effective Shooting
2. "Taking care of the Ball"
3. OR=Offensive Rebounds=More Points
4.  FTs, FTs, FTs
(Sorry I had to make it look exciting, so you all would enjoy it)
FMI go here: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm

Narch create a formula based on that.  I would say that isn't flawed.  Just by looking at those 4 factors Lenny Hall is POTY (Without looking at statisitcs)

Based on those factors Shaquile (or however you spell it) O'Neill sucks! Which I tend to agree with....the man has zero basketball skills. He's just big and in the way and thus it's easy for him to get "stats"....but even I challenge the big man to a skills contest....dribbling, shooting, passing, etc. Heck even Captj could bounce more FTs in than Shaq.

That is one of the reasons why I don't like the NBA sometimes.  Too much is based on athletic ability not enough on skills.  Thats why we Americans suck in international play. We don't have the skills.

Sarunas Jasikevicius one of my favorite MD players of recent years drops 28 against the "Best in the World" in 2004 (USA team).  Yet he really doesn't play in the NBA.  I know a guy from Serbia. They love Jasikevicius in Europe.

[narch]

What is your job? Are you in Quality Control? 

you could call it that

If it isn't yours or isn't anything you like then it isn't good at all.  That first one has been around since 1966.  I believe many have accepted it.  Otherwise it wouldn't be used or adapted for a 3 point shot. 

i never said it wasn't good...in fact i said that pvr and tbps are similar...i just don't agree with a couple of the variables used in tbps - you don't either and you're the one that called it a flawed formula...this is YOUR quote from earlier

If you want a formula that is flawed use any of these http://www.eba-stats.com/form/table_revis.htm. 

Four factors that must be in player evaulation also apply to the 4 factors of team evaluation. 4 Factors are:

1. Effective Shooting
2. "Taking care of the Ball"
3. OR=Offensive Rebounds=More Points
4.  FTs, FTs, FTs
(Sorry I had to make it look exciting, so you all would enjoy it)
FMI go here: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm

Narch create a formula based on that.  I would say that isn't flawed.  Just by looking at those 4 factors Lenny Hall is POTY (Without looking at statisitcs)

pvr incorporates all of those things

again, here is the pvr formula:
(ppg+rpg+spg)*1.5 + (apg+bpg)*2 - (topg)*1.5 = PVR

1. - effective shooting = ppg (although fg % is not factored, you have to shoot to score...unless you are going to develop a different formula for each position, shooting percentage isn't going to be a fair measure across the board)
2. - "taking care of the ball" = to's
3. - OR = rpg
4. - FT's = ppg (again, % is not factored, but ft's made are...a guy who shoots 70% from the ft line but get there 10 times a game is more effective than a guy who shoots 100% and gets 2 ft's a game)

pvr also incorporates some things that you don't value, but most who know something about the game do, like ability to get teammates involved offensively (apg) and the ability to prevent the other team from scoring (spg & bpg)

if deflections and charges taken were official statistics, i would incorporate those stats into pvr, as well

[CNU85]

4 Factors are:

1. Effective Shooting
2. "Taking care of the Ball"
3. OR=Offensive Rebounds=More Points
4.  FTs, FTs, FTs
(Sorry I had to make it look exciting, so you all would enjoy it)
FMI go here: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm

Narch create a formula based on that.  I would say that isn't flawed.  Just by looking at those 4 factors Lenny Hall is POTY (Without looking at statisitcs)

Based on those factors Shaquile (or however you spell it) O'Neill sucks! Which I tend to agree with....the man has zero basketball skills. He's just big and in the way and thus it's easy for him to get "stats"....but even I challenge the big man to a skills contest....dribbling, shooting, passing, etc. Heck even Captj could bounce more FTs in than Shaq.

That is one of the reasons why I don't like the NBA sometimes.  Too much is based on athletic ability not enough on skills.  Thats why we Americans suck in international play. We don't have the skills.

Sarunas Jasikevicius one of my favorite MD players of recent years drops 28 against the "Best in the World" in 2004 (USA team).  Yet he really doesn't play in the NBA.  I know a guy from Serbia. They love Jasikevicius in Europe.

yep...when we sent real "players" to the Olympics, we wiped them clean....Jordan, Magic, et al.

[CNU85]

whoa......did I just have an exchange with bballguy and we were agreeing with each other??

See what happens when you finally get a good hoops team - you get smarter!!

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

CNU85-
I don't think Narch would agree though.  I don't know if you could even say that.  Maybe it is that CNU's good finish not great, but good that has made you a little more humble 

Here is what I say my top 10 sport strengths are in order.  Just because you call me smart.

1. D1 College Basketball (3 straight years of office pool wins.  Even picked George Mason over Carolina last year)
2. D1 College Football
3. NFL
4. MLB
5. D1 Women's Basketball
6. High School Football/Basketball (Mostly in MD I still follow both alot)
7. d3 basketball (both sides)
8. d3football
9. Church Softball
10. NBA

I would rather watch and play church softball than watch an NBA basketball game

[CNU85]

Another agreement. I hate the NBA. I would rather watch Roundbll vomit big chunks (which she does alot...she can't hold her beer) than watch the NBA!

[CNU85]

speaking of beer....time to leave work early.....head home to change...then off to get a beer or 2 before the game. I hope CJ has figured a way to beat NCW. We haven't done it yet this year!