Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 15:15:26 GMT -8
We can compare the Simple PER's for the all-conference players vs our returning players to get a sense of which ones stand a chance of getting all-conference honors in the coming season. Looks like Pivec has the best chance, then McWilliams and Tudor. All 3 of them made the honorable mention squad, so that's encouraging. (Except we're pretty sure we'll have Slocum on the all-conference team next year, so that could hurt Pivec's chances, and Pivec's assists will probably drop.) Hristova was the big outlier here, but I guess that's what you get when you're the best player on a bad team. Melgoza is also the best player on a bad team, with the 2nd-lowest score. I can't figure how McPhee got in there ahead of Pivec, though. I guess that's one of the benefits of playing at Stanford, or maybe she got sentimental points for being a senior.
All-Conference Players and their PER scores
Anigwe 431
Billings 489
Canada 525
Cazorla 372
Gulich 620
Hebard 638
Hristova 222
Huff 380
Ibis 337
Ionescu 721
Leonard 321
McPhee 271
Melgoza 270
Simon 383
Smith 403
Our Returners and their PER scores
Tudor 298
Pivec 419
McWilliams 318
Corosdale 247
Goodman 161
Grymek 127
Washington 108
Thropay 26
Here's the calculation: "Because of this, I created a much simpler PER which I oddly enough named "Simple PER". Simple PER is calculated as follows: (2FG Made*2) - (2FG Attempted*.75) + (3FG Made*3) – (3FG Attempted*.84) + (FT Made) - (FT Attempted*-.65) + Rebounds + Assists + Blocks + Steals - Turnovers. Similar to PER, the Simple PER only gives positives for scoring if you shoot a decent percentage (see picture for breakeven shooting percentages). If a player scores a ton of points but shoots a very low percentage then they would not have a positive Simple PER. I chose a relatively low breakeven shooting percentage but that can be adjusted as needed. I like this formula because it is simple to calculate but factors in shooting percentages." www.rustylarue.com/more-than-94/player-efficiency-stats
Note that these scores are not adjusted for minutes played, so it would be better to think of them as measuring a player's contribution to the team's winning percentage instead of a player's efficiency. Players who had very little floor time are not well represented. Goodman, for instance, would have had a much higher score if you scaled her score proportionately from 16.6 minutes to 30 minutes per game: 291. Corosdale's score would rise from 247 to 305. But some of the players' scores were also inflated because their only sizable chunks of floor time were against weaker teams, so nothing's guaranteed in these numbers.
(Note that I figured he screwed up the "- (FT Attempted*-.65)" part. I changed it to "- 0.65 * (FT Attempted)", but I'm not sure that's right, either. With my change, if you made 65% of the FT's you attempted, you'd get no credit for them. But the way he wrote it, you'd get a lot of credit if you hit none of your FT's but attempted a bunch. But my change is probably about right. If you're shooting less than 65% on your FT's, then you probably should be penalized for that. In looking at the stats, I noticed that Grymek shot only 3 of 19 from the FT line. It would be absolutely nuts to have her on the floor in an important game. They only need to foul her and they get the ball for free. I guess that's why Rueck has been helping Patricia with her shooting: He's thinking ahead.)
All-Conference Players and their PER scores
Anigwe 431
Billings 489
Canada 525
Cazorla 372
Gulich 620
Hebard 638
Hristova 222
Huff 380
Ibis 337
Ionescu 721
Leonard 321
McPhee 271
Melgoza 270
Simon 383
Smith 403
Our Returners and their PER scores
Tudor 298
Pivec 419
McWilliams 318
Corosdale 247
Goodman 161
Grymek 127
Washington 108
Thropay 26
Here's the calculation: "Because of this, I created a much simpler PER which I oddly enough named "Simple PER". Simple PER is calculated as follows: (2FG Made*2) - (2FG Attempted*.75) + (3FG Made*3) – (3FG Attempted*.84) + (FT Made) - (FT Attempted*-.65) + Rebounds + Assists + Blocks + Steals - Turnovers. Similar to PER, the Simple PER only gives positives for scoring if you shoot a decent percentage (see picture for breakeven shooting percentages). If a player scores a ton of points but shoots a very low percentage then they would not have a positive Simple PER. I chose a relatively low breakeven shooting percentage but that can be adjusted as needed. I like this formula because it is simple to calculate but factors in shooting percentages." www.rustylarue.com/more-than-94/player-efficiency-stats
Note that these scores are not adjusted for minutes played, so it would be better to think of them as measuring a player's contribution to the team's winning percentage instead of a player's efficiency. Players who had very little floor time are not well represented. Goodman, for instance, would have had a much higher score if you scaled her score proportionately from 16.6 minutes to 30 minutes per game: 291. Corosdale's score would rise from 247 to 305. But some of the players' scores were also inflated because their only sizable chunks of floor time were against weaker teams, so nothing's guaranteed in these numbers.
(Note that I figured he screwed up the "- (FT Attempted*-.65)" part. I changed it to "- 0.65 * (FT Attempted)", but I'm not sure that's right, either. With my change, if you made 65% of the FT's you attempted, you'd get no credit for them. But the way he wrote it, you'd get a lot of credit if you hit none of your FT's but attempted a bunch. But my change is probably about right. If you're shooting less than 65% on your FT's, then you probably should be penalized for that. In looking at the stats, I noticed that Grymek shot only 3 of 19 from the FT line. It would be absolutely nuts to have her on the floor in an important game. They only need to foul her and they get the ball for free. I guess that's why Rueck has been helping Patricia with her shooting: He's thinking ahead.)
