well you know, it favors guards, because a point guard is supposed to be the best person to run an offense. guess what? thats a guard. and when your a player who recieves the ball you have the same responsibilities as a guard. find the best way for your team to score. if you cant make it, pass it to a cutter. or give up and pass it back out. at that point YOU are running the offense. The difference between the two? a guard touches the ball more often. thats where percentages come in. they allow you to compare someone who touches the ball 200 times to someone who touches it 500 times. if certain players get the ball in the hoop more often then another player either them selves or by passing to someone for an easy bucket, Pass it to them.
Silk: even if you think assist is that important, your formula still doesn't make any sense. When you count points made, you divide it by points attemp because shotting percentage is a major factor. But now you want to count assist, where is assist percentage? In your formula, you only count how many assists he made, but not how many times he passed and didn't make an assist. For example: Player A touched the ball in every offense, made a lot of passes, no turn over, but only got two assist in one game, do you think he is efficient? Player B only touched ball three times, no turn over, made two assists, he is efficient. But your formula can not differentiate it.
to me there are two types of passes, one where you create the action and one that lets someone else create the action. if you try to create, you pass to a cutter or find the open man when your getting doubled who shoots it up. the other is when your being defended and you are working it around to the open guy or to your scorer to try to create. that pass doesnt really help offense it gets the ball to someone that will. if you are trying to create and you get it stolen, that is a turn over.
It doesn't matter how many kind of passes you like to define. Your formula just doesn't work, it can not differentiate any kind of pass, all it cares is how many assist you made, not matter if you passed 100 times trying to create and only made two assists, or you passed 3 times trying to create and made two assists, it the same. As I said before, to be effiecient in your formula, it's pretty simple: take no shots, made a few assists, done, you are the most efficient player. Actually your original post even had a logical problem. You post to convince people that Yao is not efficient and should not touch the ball more often, those players who have higher efficiency should touch the ball often. You already admit the forumla is in favor of guards, so the most efficient player should be the guards who made a lot of assists. The problem is: to get an assist, you need to pass the ball to someone who can score, not someone who can assist. So you should pass the ball to the player who shot the high percentage!!! If according to you, the more efficient players (in your system) should touch the ball more, what will happen? The ball just get passed from one guard to another guard, everyone want to assist, no one want to shot to become efficient. Sure, that would be fun to watch.
When people say Yao should get more touches, doesn't mean they want Yao to initiate the offense more, he need to shot more because he is shooting at a very high percentage.
out of the 100 passes this formula weeds out passes that did nothing because they meant nothing they might as well have not even existed. if yaos in front of the rim and in position a guard who is efficient knows to pass to him. if a guard has nothing meaning no open shot or no pass that can become a score and he has to pass. he can see tracy, and he can see yao. he should pass to tracy. he is more efficient if we create a play to get a three point shot you should make one for jon vs. mo taylor. plays start though sura because he is the most efficient. you cant bench yao because this formula shows whos more productive on offense, not on defense where yao is still crucial. i think this formula shows that right now yao is a role player. he needs to hit his open shots when passed to and play defense. come out more to pick for team mates and take the pass if they play away from him. go more for rebounds.
also, a player who did nothing but pass for assists would guarantee having turnovers, because the defender would know he does nothing but pass, and never shoot. The best offensive players are all around on offense steve kerr a pure shooter was never as good as ray allen because ray could also put the ball on the floor and create. to the later, what im saying is that we should pass to yao only when in scoring position, three feet in, one defender on him. not to create from the post. which is what we have been doing more so of in our recent wins. And i think the league is catching on. IF they put one defender on yao who gets physical and really goes after the ball anytime hes near it, then Yao is rendered utterly useless.
man, I have pointed out serious flaws in your formula again and again, you just can't get it. For simplicity, how could you explain a player's efficiency is infinite if he takes 0 shot? I think I am done discussing with you. Enjoy your formula.
Why do you guys keep arguing? Just use the formula to calculate the numbers of the other 29 teams. And see if the best offensive players on the other teams are also the ones with the highest numbers.
that would be a good trivia question. Name one player in the NBA who has never taken a shot attempt. your right the flaw with the formula is 0. but there is no such player that exists.
Give this guy some credit for vemently defending his incredibly ridicolous formula. No to mention his more incredibly ilogical logic. Let me point out the biggest flaw of his formula: It completely ignores a player's points made at free-throw line. Look at this scenario: A player is passed the ball ten times and in his 10 shooting tries, he misses 10 times because his defender fouls him 9 times, but he is able to score each time at the line. Now his effiency factor = (0 field goal made+ 0 assists - 0 TO) /1 field goal attemped) = 0 We should stop passing to this guy because his effiency is 0. Right???
a free throw attempt is a point attempted and a made free throw was a point made. you didnt ask me about that, because your just bent on assuming im wrong.
Let me help you here to make it a more formula: Effiency = [Points made + 2 x assists - 2 x team fg% x (TO - Offensive rebs)] / Field gold points attemped
silk, since you claim this formula is a "model", I'm assuming it can predict/conclude other things except "yao sucks". can you give us a summary about what things this formula reveal about other players? The fact that this "offense effeciency formula" have ryan, barry etc listing as top 5 points out MAJOR weakness in the formula's power of making conclusions about one player's efficiency. you can at one hand dismiss the conclusion that ryan(!) is more efficient thant TMac because the formula is not comprehensive enough to take everything into account, then saying it's still a good bases to support your "yao sucks" argument. one way or another, you gotta admit either your formula sucks, or the formula is good, and both tmac and yao sucks.
Your formula is flawed and doesn't work correctly especially the way you stated it above if I am understanding you correctly in saying that FTA are counted the same as FGA. Look at the two players below and tell me who you would rather get the ball too. Player A: 5/7 FG 6/8 FT 2 TO 0 A Efficiency 12/15 = .600 Player B: 4/16 FG 2/2 FT 1 TO 5 A Efficiency 18/18 = 1.000 Not sure what the problem is but I would imagine it deals with emphasizing the effect of turnovers too much, treating FTA the same as FGA, and maybe placing a little too much value on assists. I have no problems admitting that Yao is not the best option on most nights and TMAC is usually better, but this formula does not prove it.
Okay, What I see is that you are not counting every field goal the same but this way instead -- FG = 2 points, TP = 3 Points, FT = 1 Points Player A: 16/22 Player B: 18/34 Let's change the stats some then since I was a little confused. Player A: 6/9 FG 6/8 FT 2 TO 0 A or 14/26 and a .666 shooter Player B: 4/12 FG 2/2 FT 1 TO 5 A or 18/26 and a .333 shooter This brings these two players to: Player A: .538 Player B: .692 Now who is better. I think most coaches in the league would agree that player A is superior to player B.
first off player a has an efficiency of a little over 61 percent kelvin cato in 00' 01' had numbers like A jason kidd 97' 98' like player B
