Player efficiency rankings

#1

Voluble2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
5,486
Likes
6,279
#1
I mentioned these in another post but thought I would put them here for people to see. Everyone calculates efficiency a little differently but this is what I come up with. These are normalized per minute played.

Harrison 0.61
Simmons 0.53
Massengale 0.51

Russell 0.41
Graves 0.40
Burdick 0.38
Reynolds 0.32
Carter 0.31

Jones 0.25
Moore 0.23

For comparison, the numbers for UConn are;
Stewart 0.81
Lewis 0.68
Hartley 0.64
Dolson 0.58
Tuck 0.57
Jefferson 0.56
Stokes 0.53
Chong 0.39
Banks 0.33
Lawlor 0.23

If you go by player efficiency and you were to pick your starting five from both teams Harrison is the only UT player on the list that would be in that group.

There are seven UConn players as efficient as our second best player. So basically our best is more or less their average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2
#2
Not sure what criteria was used, but it is amazing we did as well as we did with those numbers.....

We are all hoping (LV fans) that a change of offensive philosophy will bring better results.....It was a struggle last season.

UConn has shown the league the value of a well ran offense....I hope Holly and staff have noticed the old days of defense and rebounds being enough, is history.

Being a LV fan, I can still appreciate excellence and UConn is that, or at least was last season.
 
#4
#4
efficiency never won a championship or got us to the final four, we don't who was given the green light, who wasn't. so those stats are bogus
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
efficiency never won a championship or got us to the final four, we don't who was given the green light, who wasn't. so those stats are bogus

Stats are stats. I don't make any claim to being able to interpret them. And, as you are correct to assert, they do not tell the entire story. For instance Hornbuckle was very disruptive with how many times she would get a hand on a ball even if she did not get a steal. We don't have access to information like that or other things such as drives shut down etc... But it would be just as wrong to say these stats tell us nothing.

There are several formulas for player efficiency floating around. Typically they subtract points for losing a possession, missing a shot etc... and add points for points scored, assists, rebounds and the like. They vary in how much each of those things count. Sometimes they are added up for a raw score and sometimes they are normalized for minutes played... which is what I did. I can't put up the whole spreadsheet and don't claim these are official in any way, shape or form. Use them for entertainment purposes and as a jumping off point for discussion only.

But to me at least they show pretty much exactly what you would expect to see. It is hard to argue with Simmons and Harrison being our most important players, and it is hard to argue with UConn being more efficient than us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
Well then, since you put it like that. I thought the freshmen guards were our two most important players.
 
#7
#7
Not sure what criteria was used, but it is amazing we did as well as we did with those numbers.....

We are all hoping (LV fans) that a change of offensive philosophy will bring better results.....It was a struggle last season.

UConn has shown the league the value of a well ran offense....I hope Holly and staff have noticed the old days of defense and rebounds being enough, is history.

Being a LV fan, I can still appreciate excellence and UConn is that, or at least was last season.

I'm not sure what you mean by well-ran offense but if valuing possessions more is what you mean? Turning the ball over is probably the worst offense you can do as a player. These players need to be taught how valuable each possession and free throw is.
 
#8
#8
The reason I asked what formula you used was because I am somewhat familiar with the PER which is used by the NBA and just for comparison I ran Simmons, Harrison Jones and Moore through the Winston simplified version. The results might surprise you.

Harrison (25.64) came out as the most efficient of the four with Moore (25.40) being a close second. Simmons (16.40) came in a fairly distant third and Jones (8.06) was last by a mile.

Moore coming in second in this group may surprise many, however, I must say that I had a different view. She had appeared to me to be more productive in her minor role. Whether this would translate to a situation where she was playing starter's minutes, I don't know, but she is not as bad as some seem to think.

Jim
 
#9
#9
efficiency never won a championship or got us to the final four, we don't who was given the green light, who wasn't. so those stats are bogus

What about 40-0 last year and two consecutive N.C.s. Will those stats work? So maybe there is some correlation between the stats and the results.
 
#10
#10
The reason I asked what formula you used was because I am somewhat familiar with the PER which is used by the NBA and just for comparison I ran Simmons, Harrison Jones and Moore through the Winston simplified version. The results might surprise you.

Harrison (25.64) came out as the most efficient of the four with Moore (25.40) being a close second. Simmons (16.40) came in a fairly distant third and Jones (8.06) was last by a mile.

Moore coming in second in this group may surprise many, however, I must say that I had a different view. She had appeared to me to be more productive in her minor role. Whether this would translate to a situation where she was playing starter's minutes, I don't know, but she is not as bad as some seem to think.

Jim

I double checked and saw where I had typed over one of the formulas in Moore's row and she comes in at 0.57 once I fixed it. She wasn't getting credit for her rebounds.

I will just say that it is obvious to me why she doesn't play much and that would probably be better reflected in these numbers were she to play in situations that aren't blowouts and were she to play more minutes. I predicted when we signed her that the earliest she would help us would be her junior year and that is the best case scenario now.

I ran the formula you linked to and got the same numbers for Harrison, Simmons and Jones, but I had an 18.8 for Nia. Maybe I need to look at her stats again tomorrow to see if I can find a discrepancy. The formula should be ok since I got the same results as you for the others.

The formula I have is basically the same as yours, but the weighting factors are different. I have had it for over a decade and can't remember where it came from originally.
 
#11
#11
I think all this shows is what most of us who watch the game thought...we were not very efficient in taking care of the basketball.
 
#12
#12
I'm not sure what you mean by well-ran offense but if valuing possessions more is what you mean? Turning the ball over is probably the worst offense you can do as a player. These players need to be taught how valuable each possession and free throw is.

We were "fixated" on the concept the ball must go inside...When the post was covered, the ball was still passed inside, often leading to another turnover...This action alone led to a high propensity for many turnovers, which plagued the team for the entire season...

Since we had a lack of effective 3 point shooters last season, this calamity was repeated again and again. Even when some of our shooters were open for a 3, they often would pass the ball inside again, which led to another turnover.

The only shooter that did not often suffer with inside idis was Simmons....She did her best to carry the load.

This season we will have a number of recruits that are known for their propensity to score via the 3 ball. By being able to hit a few 3's early, the opponents D will have to respect the shooters with closer and tighter coverage, thus freeing up the crowded paint area, which in turn, would make the inside game more effective....

No matter what type of offense is ran, from Motion, to Princeton Offense, or to whatever, the player must have the willingness, and hopefully the ability, to hit the outside shot to loosen the crowded paint area.

That sir, is what I mean by a well ran offense.
 
Last edited:
#13
#13
We were "fixated" on the concept the ball must go inside...When the post was covered, the ball was still passed inside, often leading to another turnover...This action alone led to a high propensity for many turnovers, which plagued the team for the entire season...

Since we had a lack of effective 3 point shooters last season, this calamity was repeated again and again. Even when some of our shooters were open for a 3, they often would pass the ball inside again, which led to another turnover.

The only shooter that did not suffer with inside idis was Simmons....She did her best to carry the load.

This season we will have a number of recruits that are known for their propensity to score via the 3 ball. By being able to hit a few 3's early, the opponents D will have to respect the shooters with closer and tighter coverage, thus freeing up the crowded paint area, which in turn, would make the inside game more effective....

That sir, is what I mean by a well ran offense.

GameTime you are one of the better posters on this site, but I have to disagree with you. A team should go inside whenever possible because that is the higher percentage shot. Yes, there will be turnovers, but you have a much better chance of scoring then shooting a three.
 
#14
#14
GameTime you are one of the better posters on this site, but I have to disagree with you. A team should go inside whenever possible because that is the higher percentage shot. Yes, there will be turnovers, but you have a much better chance of scoring then shooting a three.

First, Thank You for the compliment.

And yes, the inside game is extremely valuable, but not at the expense of an outside game. By that I mean, if the D is packed in the paint waiting for the lob pass, or any type of pass, it is foolish to pass the ball into the paint, where there is a gathering of defensive efforts to intercept, or stop that action.

The outside shot, be it a 3 ball, or a 15 footer, will draw the packed D away from the paint, thus freeing up the inside game. The inside game is especially effective when the outside game is working.

We saw last season what a packed defensive paint will do to an offense that tries to go inside constantly without an outside shooting presence, a lot of turnovers is the by product.

Our friends up north have perfected this concept, which is probably as old as the peach basket that Dr. Naismith nailed to the tree. It is basic 101 basketball, but we often times played 50 1/2 basketball, going inside first, with little, or no outside game.

We fell in love with the idea of a 6'6" player in the paint, and forgot the basic element of versatility.
 
Last edited:
#15
#15
First, Thank You for the compliment.

And yes, the inside game is extremely valuable, but not at the expense of an outside game. By that I mean, if the D is packed in the paint waiting for the lob pass, or any type of pass, it is foolish to pass the ball into the paint, where there is a gathering of defensive efforts to stop that action.

The outside shot, be it a 3 ball, or a 15 footer, will draw the packed D away from the paint, thus freeing up the inside game. The inside out game is especially effective when the outside game is working.

We saw last season what a packed defensive paint will do to an offense that tries to go inside constantly without an outside shooting presence, a lot of turnovers is the by product.

Yes, if the defense is packed in the paint then you definitely need some zone busters. A team can never have to many good outside shooters. If a team is making outside shots it will draw the defense out of the paint. Then you will be able to go inside until the defense packs the paint again.
 
#16
#16
We were "fixated" on the concept the ball must go inside...When the post was covered, the ball was still passed inside, often leading to another turnover...This action alone led to a high propensity for many turnovers, which plagued the team for the entire season...

Since we had a lack of effective 3 point shooters last season, this calamity was repeated again and again. Even when some of our shooters were open for a 3, they often would pass the ball inside again, which led to another turnover.

The only shooter that did not often suffer with inside idis was Simmons....She did her best to carry the load.

This season we will have a number of recruits that are known for their propensity to score via the 3 ball. By being able to hit a few 3's early, the opponents D will have to respect the shooters with closer and tighter coverage, thus freeing up the crowded paint area, which in turn, would make the inside game more effective....

No matter what type of offense is ran, from Motion, to Princeton Offense, or to whatever, the player must have the willingness, and hopefully the ability, to hit the outside shot to loosen the crowded paint area.

That sir, is what I mean by a well ran offense.

Exactly right. I sat through too many games and watched them try to "force" the ball into the paint. Result: turnover. The other side is we could not/would not take the outside shot. Many games it was like walking into an ambush. The players in the paint open the shot opportunity for those outside; the outside shooters open the paint for the posts. Then you're not playing 2 or 3 on five when you are on offense. I understand Izzy is wonderful, but continully forcing the ball in to a player that is covered is just not smart IMO. And, yes, Meghan was frequently the only who seemed willing to shoot. I still believe defense wins games, but at some point, YOU HAVE TO SCORE.
 
#17
#17
efficiency never won a championship or got us to the final four, we don't who was given the green light, who wasn't. so those stats are bogus

These stats only confirm what has been evident for many years--that CT. is /much/ more efficient offensively than UT is, mainly because they are better coached. They move the ball more quickly, they pass better, they get better shots and make a higher percentage, and turn the ball over fewer times than we do. Put that all together and it equals /efficiency/. This isn't something new--this has been the major difference between Ct. and UT pretty much since Geno started coaching them. I remember watching Ct. long, long ago, when he had first started coaching the huskies--and the first thing I noticed was how much better they moved and passed the ball than UT. You'd think that our coaches would have gotten that over the years--but they never have. PS didn't, and Holly hasn't--mainly because UT's offensively philosophy essentially is: let's hope our best player(s) can score. Superstars like Parker will always raise your efficiency because they score efficiently, but any good coach ought to be able to take 5 good players (high recruited players who may not be superstars) and run an efficient offense, even without stars. Geno has proved he can do that, and our coaches have proved they can't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#18
#18
These stats only confirm what has been evident for many years--that CT. is /much/ more efficient offensively than UT is, mainly because they are better coached. They move the ball more quickly, they pass better, they get better shots and make a higher percentage, and turn the ball over fewer times than we do. Put that all together and it equals /efficiency/. This isn't something new--this has been the major difference between Ct. and UT pretty much since Geno started coaching them. I remember watching Ct. long, long ago, when he had first started coaching the huskies--and the first thing I noticed was how much better they moved and passed the ball than UT. You'd think that our coaches would have gotten that over the years--but they never have. PS didn't, and Holly hasn't--mainly because UT's offensively philosophy essentially is: let's hope our best player(s) can score. Superstars like Parker will always raise your efficiency because they score efficiently, but any good coach ought to be able to take 5 good players (high recruited players who may not be superstars) and run an efficient offense, even without stars. Geno has proved he can do that, and our coaches have proved they can't.

Agree with you armchair..

Effective offense has not been stressed at UT for quite some time...The offense has been primarily the one on one game, or the (opponent) turn over game, with a dose of break away ball thrown in for variety....Very few set plays are ever ran, or for that matter, the offense has often looked disjointed and confused...Too many times the players stand around, instead of running back door plays, or running cutting patterns and screens to dislodge the defender.

A fairly unsophisticated offense has been successful in the past, but with the evolution of today's players and sophisticated defenses, a structured offense, that stresses ball movement and proper screen techniques, and ball security, is a must if the program is to regain a national prominence.

Is Holly the woman to implement such changes? I don't know, but I certainly hope she has the right stuff.

And yes, UConn does not suffer from the same substandard offensive performance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
When you all say our offense has been ineffective what you really mean is the three point shot. We haven't really had great knock down three point shooters for the last ten years save a couple players. If you have several effective three point shooters and the inside game like UConn and ND then it makes your offense hard to stop. Pat with her man to man defense probably felt she could always stop the three point game and she could but we really haven't had that kind of D in many years. Both UConn and ND have inside and outside game and effective D. It sure opens up the passing lanes. That's probably why we have so many turnovers is because teams don't highly respect our 3 point capability and they collapse their D and we try to force it inside anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
These stats only confirm what has been evident for many years--that CT. is /much/ more efficient offensively than UT is, mainly because they are better coached. They move the ball more quickly, they pass better, they get better shots and make a higher percentage, and turn the ball over fewer times than we do. Put that all together and it equals /efficiency/. This isn't something new--this has been the major difference between Ct. and UT pretty much since Geno started coaching them. I remember watching Ct. long, long ago, when he had first started coaching the huskies--and the first thing I noticed was how much better they moved and passed the ball than UT. You'd think that our coaches would have gotten that over the years--but they never have. PS didn't, and Holly hasn't--mainly because UT's offensively philosophy essentially is: let's hope our best player(s) can score. Superstars like Parker will always raise your efficiency because they score efficiently, but any good coach ought to be able to take 5 good players (high recruited players who may not be superstars) and run an efficient offense, even without stars. Geno has proved he can do that, and our coaches have proved they can't.

so your saying that CPS is and was a bad coach ? sorry i will have to disagree with that,her time was cut short,i would love to see her coaching again
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#23
#23
When you all say our offense has been ineffective what you really mean is the three point shot. We haven't really had great knock down three point shooters for the last ten years save a couple players. If you have several effective three point shooters and the inside game like UConn and ND then it makes your offense hard to stop. Pat with her man to man defense probably felt she could always stop the three point game and she could but we really haven't had that kind of D in many years. Both UConn and ND have inside and outside game and effective D. It sure opens up the passing lanes. That's probably why we have so many turnovers is because teams don't highly respect our 3 point capability and they collapse their D and we try to force it inside anyways.

You nailed it Sandvol. It comes down to balance. If you don't have a balanced offensive threat (inside & outside shooters) the defense can 'cheat' and collapse on the post making it very difficult even for good guards to make any penetration & negating your bigs.
 
#24
#24
If you look at the NBA the most talented players have the highest efficiency. I am sure having a system to run helps, but some of our players are not as talented as their rating out of high school. Like Sandvol said we didn't have consistent balance last season. Our three point shooting was inconsistent some games and when we'd miss a few we would panic go into get the ball inside mode and make a lot of turnovers.
The one thing I am hoping that the new players will add is some consistent three point shooting. If they can make them defenses will have to spread out more and the inside game will be much better. Teams just clogged us up last season and said go ahead and shoot outside.
 

VN Store



Back
Top