WBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletics Association

[jspiii]

I'm surprised we haven't gotten the "Where's your women's banner" argument  yet.  lol

[Erm Schmigget]

As for wanting all three of the players on your team, realist, two out of three ain't bad.    

Sounds like Erm's ready to change his board name to Meatloaf.

+k to ok for the pick-up

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Philana      Carissa
21.4   min   26.0
8.3    ppg   15.8
5.3    reb   8.6
3.2    asst  1.3
3.8    stl   0.3
0.7    blk   3.8

We can attempt compare statistics by turning these numbers into points by inventing the formula:

Effective Points = points + (2 x assists) + ([(reb - (reb x TeamReb%)) + (blk x TeamReb%) + steals] x TeamEffFG%)

This calculation gives:

PG: 20.5 effective points per game
CV: 26.1 effective points per game

And adjusting PG's time up to 26.0 minutes per game would give her 24.9 effective points per game. Much closer to CV.

...And I don't mean to imply that statistics are the sole determining factor of the MVP race, just thought it would be interesting to try to compare stats.

...And I am aware that this formula probably grossly overvalues assists.

Why does it grossly overvalue assists.  By definition an assist leads to points, and since some percentage of them would be 3 pointers, seems like your under-estimating their value.

[KnightSlappy]

But I also don't consider the trips down the floor that would have also resulted in points had the specific assist not been made.

There's probably some sort of points per possession correction that should be made. Anyway, I felt like 2 points was more than fair for assists. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Mr. Ypsi]

But I also don't consider the trips down the floor that would have also resulted in points had the specific assist not been made.

There's probably some sort of points per possession correction that should be made. Anyway, I felt like 2 points was more than fair for assists. Maybe I'm wrong.

That is probably more than balanced by the perfect pass that would have been an assist if only the danged shooter hadn't missed the shot!

[Flying Dutch Fan]

But I also don't consider the trips down the floor that would have also resulted in points had the specific assist not been made.

There's probably some sort of points per possession correction that should be made. Anyway, I felt like 2 points was more than fair for assists. Maybe I'm wrong.

That is probably more than balanced by the perfect pass that would have been an assist if only the danged shooter hadn't missed the shot!

Or dropped the pass, or traveled...

[KnightSlappy]

But I also don't consider the trips down the floor that would have also resulted in points had the specific assist not been made.

There's probably some sort of points per possession correction that should be made. Anyway, I felt like 2 points was more than fair for assists. Maybe I'm wrong.

That is probably more than balanced by the perfect pass that would have been an assist if only the danged shooter hadn't missed the shot!

Which is exaclty why two full points probably shouldn't be credited for an assist. A teammate's contribution is required to convert the points. This is especially true of a three point attempt.

[Erm Schmigget]

"Verkaik more than doubled Greene in scoring..." is continued with "...but she plays in a system that is focused around her and gets to play five more minutes per game."  This is a point some of us not wearing maroon and gold glasses have raised here before.  He goes on to point out that "Hope utilizes a deeper bench and goes [to] it more as it has beaten MIAA opponents by a league-best 22.1 points per game — nine more than Calvin — further limiting opportunities for Greene."

So what you're saying here is that Philana is less valuable to her team than Carissa is. Her value on Hope's squad is diminished because they have a deeper bench and have more scoring options.

Take away Carissa, and what is Calvin's record?

Take away Philana, and what is Hope's record?

Not what I'm saying...it's a Babbit quote, remember?  I just thought your creative editing (slicing and dicing) was a little one-sided.  But then, no one in this conversation is really bucking for a pulitzer in journalism, are we?

If voters stick strictly to the definition you are using here, then Carissa should have been given the award before this week.  Maybe well before.  Just responding to what you're saying.

[KnightSlappy]

"Verkaik more than doubled Greene in scoring..." is continued with "...but she plays in a system that is focused around her and gets to play five more minutes per game."  This is a point some of us not wearing maroon and gold glasses have raised here before.  He goes on to point out that "Hope utilizes a deeper bench and goes [to] it more as it has beaten MIAA opponents by a league-best 22.1 points per game — nine more than Calvin — further limiting opportunities for Greene."

So what you're saying here is that Philana is less valuable to her team than Carissa is. Her value on Hope's squad is diminished because they have a deeper bench and have more scoring options.

Take away Carissa, and what is Calvin's record?

Take away Philana, and what is Hope's record?

Not what I'm saying...it's a Babbit quote, remember?  I just thought your creative editing (slicing and dicing) was a little one-sided.  But then, no one in this conversation is really bucking for a pulitzer in journalism, are we?

If voters stick strictly to the definition you are using here, then Carissa should have been given the award before this week.  Maybe well before.  Just responding to what you're saying.

It is what you're saying...bolded is an Erm Schmigget quote, remember?

What you said is that you've said the same things Babbitt's said about less playing time.

...And for the record, I only sliced -- never diced.

[wiz]

Haven't been this many posts on this site in one day for a long time.  Maybe not even in the history of DIII women's basketball.  Anyway, at 10:12 this morning I tried to get a little discussion going.  Glad to see we're all able to talk with each other and that there isn't any hatred or nose punching like that stuff that goes on at the men's board.

[Erm Schmigget]

Haven't been this many posts on this site in one day for a long time.  Maybe not even in the history of DIII women's basketball.  Anyway, at 10:12 this morning I tried to get a little discussion going.  Glad to see we're all able to talk with each other and that there isn't any hatred or nose punching like that stuff that goes on at the men's board.

Thanks for the smile...and the topic.

[Erm Schmigget]

"Verkaik more than doubled Greene in scoring..." is continued with "...but she plays in a system that is focused around her and gets to play five more minutes per game."  This is a point some of us not wearing maroon and gold glasses have raised here before.  He goes on to point out that "Hope utilizes a deeper bench and goes [to] it more as it has beaten MIAA opponents by a league-best 22.1 points per game — nine more than Calvin — further limiting opportunities for Greene."

So what you're saying here is that Philana is less valuable to her team than Carissa is. Her value on Hope's squad is diminished because they have a deeper bench and have more scoring options.

Take away Carissa, and what is Calvin's record?

Take away Philana, and what is Hope's record?

Not what I'm saying...it's a Babbit quote, remember?  I just thought your creative editing (slicing and dicing) was a little one-sided.  But then, no one in this conversation is really bucking for a pulitzer in journalism, are we?

If voters stick strictly to the definition you are using here, then Carissa should have been given the award before this week.  Maybe well before.  Just responding to what you're saying.

It is what you're saying...bolded is an Erm Schmigget quote, remember?

What you said is that you've said the same things Babbitt's said about less playing time.

...And for the record, I only sliced -- never diced.

You're putting words in my mouth.  Where did I say that I was the one who made the point before?  If you were talking to Caissa and she said "Some of us on the team are shorter than 6' tall," would you jump to the conclusion that she was referring to herself?

[KnightSlappy]

You're putting words in my mouth.  Where did I say that I was the one who made the point before?  If you were talking to Caissa and she said "Some of us on the team are shorter than 6' tall," would you jump to the conclusion that she was referring to herself?

Yes

[Erm Schmigget]

You're putting words in my mouth.  Where did I say that I was the one who made the point before?  If you were talking to Caissa and she said "Some of us on the team are shorter than 6' tall," would you jump to the conclusion that she was referring to herself?

Yes

Stick to numbers.

[Dark Knight]

Calvin had a 28 pt. lead 4 times in the 2nd half.
Verkiak 15 pts. 9 rebounds, and 4 blocks in 21 minutes.

I'll see your Verkaik, and raise you a Snikkers

15 points, 8 rebounds, 2 blocks and 2 steals in 17 minutes    

Then again, Snikkers took 14 shots in those 17 minutes to score her 15 points. Verkaik scored her 15 points with only 10 shots. That's 1.5 points per shot vs. 1.1.

You're right of course - forgive me for having the audacity of even thinking of typing the name of any other player.

For any new posters reading this, let me welcome you to the "Bow at the feet of Carrisa Verkaik" board.      
           

Oh dear, I seem to have caused offense by raising a valid counter-argument. Sorry about that!  

I have no problem with counter-arguments.  I'm also aware that you can make statistics say whatever you want (I have an example below) 

The point I was trying to make is that I've just grown tired of the vast majority of posts being about a single player.  Is she a phenomenal player, yes, but I suspect the rest of the Calvin team has also contributed to their success (a great season by any measure).  In reading this board you would never know they existed. 

<an example of a way to make the statistics support Carrie's contribution as better>
Point per minute

CS - .882
CV - .714

Points per minute as a stat is all well and good, though it really matters more to the team's offense how many points you get per shot. If I have to put up 40 shots to get my 20 points, the team would probably be better off giving the ball to someone else.

But the problem with points per minute stats is that the assumption you could continue to score points at that rate if you played more minutes isn't necessarily true. Maybe defenses would get better at stopping a player. Maybe the player doesn't have the conditioning to play that hard for many more minutes.

In Carrie's case I'm sure her playing time is limited by being taken out when the team is way ahead. That's true for Carissa as well, though perhaps to a lesser extent. However, I don't think you can assume that more PT wouldn't decrease her efficiency.