MBB: St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Mac Attack]

Players who contribute in the most categories should be given extra consideration. Puts a premium on multi-diminsional play. That's why there are 13 categories. The penalty for doing something "really bad" is not being listed at all - which costs a player "points." Players who dominate the rebounding stats get their points - same for guards. And the numbers are all weighted the same. Rebounds are no more important than steals, etc. Just one way to look at it.

Not that I'm a big Simpson's fan, but one of Homer's most famous quotes is "Statistics are useless. You can use them to prove just about anything."

[Daryl L Lloyd]

MacAttack: While I applaud your effort on this endevour, Im just going to have to disagree with the assumptions which one would drawn from a system, which in my opinion is riddled with flaws. I leave it at that and say we have very different ideas about certain aspects of the game.

Hats off to the players making MacAttacks "94 foot team".  

[Mac Attack]

Fair enough, Daryl. I just took the numbers as they were listed, categorized them, and ranked the playrs based on the number of categories they were ranked and their placement within each category. Spinner was only ranked in five categories, so he didn't make the "cut," so to speak. be he's clearly one of the best players in the league based on what I've seen. Still, based on the stats to date, a starting five of Whalum, Simmons, Allen, McComb, and Tarpley would be hard to beat. As would the team of Coleman, Greene, Hammond, Robertson, and Hoggett. That would be a very good game.

[y_jack_lok]

Right, I forgot about that. See you tonight.

[Daryl L Lloyd]

MacAttack: It would be interesting to see those two teams go at it.

[Mac Attack]

How about the "third" team and "fourth" teams?

Foggerty, White, Davis, Johnson, and Saxton vs. Conquest, Holland, McCoy, Taylor, and add Spinner.

Four pretty solid teams right. Would to see that "Final Four!"

[fcnews]

That has to be one of the most ridicules things I've read on here in awhile. Mac Attack you do get an A for effort. But categories would have to be weighted.

Let's see great teams have good point guards. He could be number one in assists, steals, A/T ratio and not make the team. Dominate post player leads in scoring, rebounding and blocks. There is no room for a guy like Storandt who just controls the boards and does the small things. The whole thing is skewded to a team that averages the most points.

That's like figuring out NASCAR's race for the chase.

I'll take a team of role players who can play together any day. There is only one stat that counts W-L.

[Daryl L Lloyd]

Thats what I was saying about drawing assumptions of any kind from this data FC, its flawed because there are too many other considerations.  And you are right a player knowing thier role is often more important than thier "overall game" or how well rounded they are as a player.   

[fcnews]

What about a player like Daryl? Fights started, fights won, elbows landed and Technicals induced. Sorry Daryl youwouldn't make the cut. 

[Daryl L Lloyd]

But id be #1 in those four catagories, that should count for something. 

[Mac Attack]

I would say that a team that includes players who can do a number of things well - but not dominate any one category - is a team of role players. Is free throw percentage as important as scoring or rebounding? Probably not. But when considering a complete player, I believe you have to look at all 13 categories. Darn, those pesky statistics.

The biggest drawback in this formula is it can't factor in defense. I guess steals and blocks go into that mix - but it doesn't account for a kid who does a light's out job every night preventing his man from scoring. In my view, that is the most important "stat" of all - but there's no way to put a statistical "value" on that kid, beyond what we as fans, and what coaches see. But all of us know who those kids are - and most teams can't win without them.

Fun discussion.

[fcnews]

Daryl you could start for me. We'd by a special uni # 747.

[Daryl L Lloyd]

MacAttack: it doesnt factor in intagibles either. leadership and poise are big components of an "all around player." 

This is my problem with implying that assumptions can be drawn from these catagories and define the well roundedness of a player: different players are expected to do different things.  As fc pointed out, you cant fault a player for doing what his positional role is.  As there is no weight put on these catagories, all you can really infer from this is to say player A is a better "all around player," than player B but what does that really mean when you are comparing players who have different "roles" on the team?  Pardon the cliche but in my opinion its like comparing apples to oranges in that situation.   

FC: I think my eligability might be called into question.

[Mac Attack]

Daryl - you're exactly right. That's why I put in my first post earlier this morning "Of course this doesn't take into account such intangibles as leadership qualities, effort, attitude, and most importantly, defense - but it's all we have to go on."
This is purely a stat-based formula that uses the 13 SLIAC recognized categories to determine which players contribute the most - in conference play - from baseline to baseline. No more, no less. Is the formula skewed toward players who play for teams that score the most points? Looks like it. But in response to the "only one stat that counts is W-L," the team that scores the most points usually wins the game.

[fcnews]

Mac Attack - Let's put it this way. If Mac doesn't win the conference it must be a crime. You have Four players ranked before a single WU or FU player even appears on this list.