Minutes per points for each player whole season

#28
#28
Volfan2012 said:
Sorry but you can't divide points by minutes. You have to divide minutes into points to get total points scored per minute. So with Tess that would be .4 points per minute times 434 minutes would give you her point total of 183. Cooper 679 minutes divided by 485 points would give you .71 points per minute. If we used your foemula then Tess would have score 1,029 points and Cooper would have scored 950. So you have the wrong formula. The formula to find points per minute is minutes played into points scored. Misunderstood what he was pointing out at first math is valid but it does not prove anything as far as how good a player is.
Click to expand...
You are both right. One can divide any number by any other number. Cooper for example. Mudcat divided minutes by points and determined Cooper scored a point every 1.4 minutes. Proof is 679 ÷ 1.4 = 485. You chose to divide points by minutes and determined Cooper scored .7142857 points per minute. Proof is 679 X .7142857 = 485. I would love to see either one of these.formulas for SEC games only.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATLVOLFAN01, mudcat1973 and Volfan2012
#30
#30
1morevol said:
You are both right. One can divide any number by any other number. Cooper for example. Mudcat divided minutes by points and determined Cooper scored a point every 1.4 minutes. Proof is 679 ÷ 1.4 = 485. You chose to divide points by minutes and determined Cooper scored .7142857 points per minute. Proof is 679 X .7142857 = 485. I would love to see either one of these.formulas for SEC games only.
Click to expand...
Really it doesn't matter how you score in so many minutes. It doesn't make you efficient. Like I said you can score 10 in 10 minutes of play but if your taking 15 shots to do it your not helping the team. I'd rather see a player score 10 on six shots more than 10 in 10 minutes of play. Great play all depends on efficiency not how much you play. If you are really efficient your going to play more than someone that isn't. Boyd, and Latham have bad per minute scoring stats, but they are shooting 50 percent and 46 percent in the minutes they do play. not shooting as much. Tess has a better per minute average but she is shooting 37 percent in the minutes she plays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1morevol
#32
#32
Volfan2012 said:
Really it doesn't matter how you score in so many minutes. It doesn't make you efficient. Like I said you can score 10 in 10 minutes of play but if your taking 15 shots to do it your not helping the team. I'd rather see a player score 10 on six shots more than 10 in 10 minutes of play. Great play all depends on efficiency not how much you play. If you are really efficient your going to play more than someone that isn't. Boyd, and Latham have bad per minute scoring stats, but they are shooting 50 percent and 46 percent in the minutes they do play. not shooting as much. Tess has a better per minute average but she is shooting 37 percent in the minutes she plays.
Click to expand...
If taking mostly thee pointers 100 shots at 37 % =111
If taking mostly two pointers 100 shots at 55% = 110
Conclusion 37 3 point shooters are equal to 55 % two points shooters
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1reVOLver, 1morevol and chuckiepoo
#33
#33
Volfan2012 said:
Really it doesn't matter how you score in so many minutes. It doesn't make you efficient. Like I said you can score 10 in 10 minutes of play but if your taking 15 shots to do it your not helping the team. I'd rather see a player score 10 on six shots more than 10 in 10 minutes of play. Great play all depends on efficiency not how much you play. If you are really efficient your going to play more than someone that isn't. Boyd, and Latham have bad per minute scoring stats, but they are shooting 50 percent and 46 percent in the minutes they do play. not shooting as much. Tess has a better per minute average but she is shooting 37 percent in the minutes she plays.
Click to expand...
Boyd boyd at 50 would score 100 with taking 100 shots
Latham at 46% would score 92 points taking 100 shots.
Tess at 37 % shooting mostly three's score 111 points taking 100 shots.
Tess actually shot 35 % on her three's she would score 105 points if took 100 of them.
Tess has not jacking up lot more shots to points in their about equal playing time.
Boyd 487 minutes Darby 434 minutes Latham 399 minutes
They played about equal time.
Darby 183 points Boyd 118 points Latham 108
Tess has been efficiency with her time scoring points it's harder to hit threes than twos that's way they give you one extra point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1morevol and chuckiepoo
#34
#34
mudcat1973 said:
Boyd boyd at 50 would score 100 with taking 100 shots
Latham at 46% would score 92 points taking 100 shots.
Tess at 37 % shooting mostly three's score 111 points taking 100 shots.
Tess actually shot 35 % on her three's she would score 105 points if took 100 of them.
Tess has not jacking up lot more shots to points in their about equal playing time.
Boyd 487 minutes Darby 434 minutes Latham 399 minutes
They played about equal time.
Darby 183 points Boyd 118 points Latham 108
Tess has been efficiency with her time scoring points it's harder to hit threes than twos that's way they give you one extra point.
Click to expand...
Per Nate Oats Bama coach its harder to hit midrange 2s than it is to hit 3s, that's why he tells his players either shoot 3s or layup & dunks, no midrange 2s. Oats a former Algebra/Geometry & Statistics teacher in Michigan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and volsagain
#35
#35
Volfan2012 said:
Really it doesn't matter how you score in so many minutes. It doesn't make you efficient. Like I said you can score 10 in 10 minutes of play but if your taking 15 shots to do it your not helping the team. I'd rather see a player score 10 on six shots more than 10 in 10 minutes of play. Great play all depends on efficiency not how much you play. If you are really efficient your going to play more than someone that isn't. Boyd, and Latham have bad per minute scoring stats, but they are shooting 50 percent and 46 percent in the minutes they do play. not shooting as much. Tess has a better per minute average but she is shooting 37 percent in the minutes she plays.
Click to expand...
I agree. There are too many variables in play.
 
#36
#36
37620VOL said:
One could argue that you can't divide by 0
Click to expand...
One could. One could also argue that 0 ÷ 0 equals an infinity of zeroes. Since a number divided by itself is 1 and 0 is considered a number, one could argue 0 ÷ 0 = 1. I suppose the proof of that would be the quotient 1 X the divisor 0 would equal the dividend 0. Hmm, 0 ÷ 0 = 6974 ( or any number one wishes) because the proof will always be 0.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
1morevol said:
One could. One could also argue that 0 ÷ 0 equals an infinity of zeroes. Since a number divided by itself is 1 and 0 is considered a number, one could argue 0 ÷ 0 = 1. I suppose the proof of that would be the quotient 1 X the divisor 0 would equal the dividend 0. Hmm, 0 ÷ 0 = 6974 ( or any number one wishes) because the proof will always be 0.
Click to expand...

Excel won't let me divide by 0. That's all I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo, brittannica, mudcat1973 and 1 other person
#40
#40
mudcat1973 said:
Boyd boyd at 50 would score 100 with taking 100 shots
Latham at 46% would score 92 points taking 100 shots.
Tess at 37 % shooting mostly three's score 111 points taking 100 shots.
Tess actually shot 35 % on her three's she would score 105 points if took 100 of them.
Tess has not jacking up lot more shots to points in their about equal playing time.
Boyd 487 minutes Darby 434 minutes Latham 399 minutes
They played about equal time.
Darby 183 points Boyd 118 points Latham 108
Tess has been efficiency with her time scoring points it's harder to hit threes than twos that's way they give you one extra point.
Click to expand...
Total points scored Darby 173 total shots scored 183 total points. Points per shot attempted .94 So she shot 173 times her point production per attempt was .94
Boyd 84 shots scored 118 points Points per shot attempted 1.4 She shot 84 times so her points per attempt were 1.4 Boyd producing .50 more points per shot attempt.
You just have to show the entire picture Boyd is much more efficient scorer than Darby.

Latham 93 shot attempts for 108 points 1.16 points per shot attempt she scored .22 more points per shot attempt thant Darby.

Both Darby and Boyd are more efficient scorers that Darby in their overall play.

Cause for every player you just can't say one is shooting threes and one is shooting all twos as they shoot some of both and there is also the free throw line where you score. It all adds up to your overall efficiency as a scorer and this is the result. Darby is the better three point shooter and takes most of her attempts from the three. Boyd is the better two point shooter and also is able to get to the free throw line to score. Both Boyd and Latham score more points per shot attempted than Darby.

There is no argument that Darby should play more than Boyd or Latham as they are both better rebounders, better defenders, and are more efficient scorers than Darby. Efficiency in your entire game is how a coach decides your minutes and that is why at this point both Latham and Boyd are playing more than Darby, Be glad for the 12 to 15 minutes she is getting she willl not be getting anymore going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka, brittannica and volsagain
#41
#41
1morevol said:
@Volfan2012 and @mudcat1973 , did you notice what happens if your two different method's results are multiplied? .71 X 1.4 = 1 point.
Click to expand...
Yes your right and this total argument is that Darby should be playing more than Boyd or Latham maybe some others. Not going to happen there is more to a game like defense and rebounding and getting to the free throw line. The only thing Darby has going over either one of them is three point shooting, but when you add up all the ways to score three, two, free throw line both Latham and Boyd are more efficient scorers than Darby. Darby comes in overall at .94, Boyd an awesome 1.4 anf Latham 1.16. If I were coach I would want Boyd and Latham playing more minutes and that is what is happening.
 
#42
#42
Volfan2012 said:
Yes your right and this total argument is that Darby should be playing more than Boyd or Latham maybe some others. Not going to happen there is more to a game like defense and rebounding and getting to the free throw line. The only thing Darby has going over either one of them is three point shooting, but when you add up all the ways to score three, two, free throw line both Latham and Boyd are more efficient scorers than Darby. Darby comes in overall at .94, Boyd an awesome 1.4 anf Latham 1.16. If I were coach I would want Boyd and Latham playing more minutes and that is what is happening.
Click to expand...
Volfan2012 said:
Total points scored Darby 173 total shots scored 183 total points. Points per shot attempted .94 So she shot 173 times her point production per attempt was .94
Boyd 84 shots scored 118 points Points per shot attempted 1.4 She shot 84 times so her points per attempt were 1.4 Boyd producing .50 more points per shot attempt.
You just have to show the entire picture Boyd is much more efficient scorer than Darby.

Latham 93 shot attempts for 108 points 1.16 points per shot attempt she scored .22 more points per shot attempt thant Darby.

Both Darby and Boyd are more efficient scorers that Darby in their overall play.

Cause for every player you just can't say one is shooting threes and one is shooting all twos as they shoot some of both and there is also the free throw line where you score. It all adds up to your overall efficiency as a scorer and this is the result. Darby is the better three point shooter and takes most of her attempts from the three. Boyd is the better two point shooter and also is able to get to the free throw line to score. Both Boyd and Latham score more points per shot attempted than Darby.

There is no argument that Darby should play more than Boyd or Latham as they are both better rebounders, better defenders, and are more efficient scorers than Darby. Efficiency in your entire game is how a coach decides your minutes and that is why at this point both Latham and Boyd are playing more than Darby, Be glad for the 12 to 15 minutes she is getting she willl not be getting anymore going forward.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that. Every time I see Boyd play I'm thinking this kid should be getting more playing time. A couple of 3 pointers a game is not worth much if the player you are guarding, consistently blows by you for a layup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka and Volfan2012
#46
#46
1morevol said:
I agree with all of that. Every time I see Boyd play I'm thinking this kid should be getting more playing time. A couple of 3 pointers a game is not worth much if the player you are guarding, consistently blows by you for a layup.
Click to expand...
One could make the case that Coach Kim should have phased in her high-octane approach to basketball; because, when all is said and done, and, no matter the suggestions/claims at her Intro, this was to be a two, three year (or more) installment plan. She must have known, as many here have suggested, that the depth of our current roster was not fully-suited, or quite up to the SEC task, especially in this initial season. But then, there was that incredible, 14-0 early-season, and well, here we are.

We really did appear to lack confidence on Sunday. Missing shots, many of them, uncontested, can have that effect. OTOH, we were actually there, or almost there, and in some big games, against three, four, or more ranked opponents, precisely due to the System. How many times did we endure stall tactics, most recently the Georgia Lady's two-minute shoe lacing demonstration? And, remember the Iowa All-American - Lucy Olsen - inexplicably heaving two, game-changing, awful passes ...due to exhaustion? Iowa's starting five committed 23 turnovers! In other words, because of the System, we beat some really good teams; plus, a missed, wide open three, a put back in Nashville, a couple key missed shots or assignments in the Texas and LSU games, or we have at least three more wins. And, very importantly, Talaysia is on the recliner, looking forward to our first SEC Tournament game, Tomorrow, or even Friday. Oh well.

I think what I'm getting at is, that, in year one - Kim Caldwell - we're close. Very close. Rather than a thing of beauty, however, it is oftentimes, disheveled. Yes, a few close games were literally won by exhausting our opponents. Now, we're having to admit to what some have claimed: this approach (with our current personnel) does not always work against the better, deeper teams. However, if you think you're witnessing the finished Kim Caldwell Project, be prepared to be pleasantly surprised. Soon.

I still fear that we will lose against hair-on-fire Vanderbilt, tomorrow. IF we play tomorrow (I believe we will). And, we might lose key prospects, precisely due to the System we run. And yet, we literally have five very promising Ladies, three of them, All-Americans, heading our way! And the pluses-minuses of the portal are just around the corner. So, exciting times, regardless of how the SEC-NCAA Tournaments play out.

Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and Volfan2012
#47
#47
1morevol said:
@Volfan2012 and @mudcat1973 , did you notice what happens if your two different method's results are multiplied? .71 X 1.4 = 1 point.
Click to expand...

.71 points per minute × 1.4 minutes per point = '1', not '1 point'. Points and minutes both cancel out.

A rate and the rate's inverse always multiply to 1. (This is the multiplicativ equivalent of the fact that a number and its negativ always sum to 0)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mudcat1973 and 1morevol
#48
#48
points scored, team offense, team defense, turnover/assist ratio, and opposing team's offense and defense while that player is on the court is the only way to measure an individual's efficiency. +/- rating is the only measure to determine a player contribution to the team as a whole during the periods he/she is on the court.

www.hoopsaddict.com

What Does +/- Mean in Basketball? | Hoops Addict

Have you ever scoured a box score and noticed something in the far right column that says +/-? This post can help you understand what this stat means.
www.hoopsaddict.com www.hoopsaddict.com
 
Last edited:
#49
#49
Volfan2012 said:
Yes your right and this total argument is that Darby should be playing more than Boyd or Latham maybe some others. Not going to happen there is more to a game like defense and rebounding and getting to the free throw line. The only thing Darby has going over either one of them is three point shooting, but when you add up all the ways to score three, two, free throw line both Latham and Boyd are more efficient scorers than Darby. Darby comes in overall at .94, Boyd an awesome 1.4 anf Latham 1.16. If I were coach I would want Boyd and Latham playing more minutes and that is what is happening.
Click to expand...

But you might have to factor in +- stuff because the defense’s spacing when she is in the floor creates space that you don’t get from the others. NOT an exact science out there, stats are just stats, she may improve every other player out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mudcat1973
#50
#50
tess took 173 fga plus 6 fta total of shots 179 total points score 183 @ 179 divide 183 = .97814 boyd took 84 fga plus 37 fta total of shots 121 total of points score118 @ 121 divide by 118 = 1.02542 latham took fga 93 plus 33 fta total of shots 126 total of points score 108 @ 126 divide 108 =1.66666 if you are going to put free points in points per shots you got to put free attamps. in your points per shots. @ thats why they do not put free points in field goal percents or 3 pointer percents % they keep free throw points out of fg% and 3pts % @ if you are going to put free points into your points per shot math . then you have to put free attampts in your math.... this is before post season stats or before todays game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top