[81alum]

Peanut is in grad school at cal.  Plus she’s from Chico   
Sat near her Dad at Vegas great family

Very cool.  This is the kind of transfer I endorse--when there is an academic benefit to it.  Good luck to her.

---

BobK, I appreciate your scouting the other teams.  It helps to put a face to the team so they aren't an unknown when I first see them.

However, why is it that mainstream sources, and then the rest that echo their analysis style, think it is meaningful to give stats per game from last year, without also saying playing time?   An average of 5 points per game can be pretty impressive if a player only played 5 minutes a game, but not so impressive if they averaged 38 minutes a game.   Actually, I'd rather know how long the coach played them rather than how many points they scored.  If a player got the 8th or 10th or 13th most playing time seems more telling about their basketball skills, especially since offense is only half of the game.

I've always thought it was ludicrous when analysts claim to show a player has gotten better from year to year by showing their points per game year over year.   Usually it is more a product of playing time and role in the offense.

Yes, MT, I hear you and I mostly agree.  However, the one thing points-per-game does tell you is a combination/overall rating of how valuable the coach thought the player was and (a little less) how well the player executed in whatever minutes were available during the previous year. It says nothing about how many points the athlete could have scored if played 40 minutes, but one assumes that the coach had a good reason for playing her only 6 minutes, etc.  So the ppg needs to be largely taken as the coaches evaluation of the player rather than an indication of the player's innate performance.

I guess it comes down to whether you would prefer to know what the coach thought of the player (vis a vis the alternatives) vs. an abstract performance quotient of points-per-40.  To interpret the coach's award of minutes, one would have to know who was playing in front of the player.  Playing behind Kelsey Plum and getting 6 minutes per game is not necessarily a bad thing.  Playing behind a mediocre player means something different.  Points-per-40 seems not to need that kind of information, but of course it does.  What if the six minutes you get in a game are almost always at the end during a blowout win or loss, against 3rd string opposition?  Then what is the significance of points scored?

Sadly, there is just no substitute for watching a player in game situations, and ideally getting as many different kinds of information as possible.  All of the above. When I review an upcoming opponent I pay a lot of attention to mpg as well a ppg.

[81alum]

Peanut is in grad school at cal.  Plus she’s from Chico   
Sat near her Dad at Vegas great family

Very cool.  This is the kind of transfer I endorse--when there is an academic benefit to it.  Good luck to her.

---

BobK, I appreciate your scouting the other teams.  It helps to put a face to the team so they aren't an unknown when I first see them.

However, why is it that mainstream sources, and then the rest that echo their analysis style, think it is meaningful to give stats per game from last year, without also saying playing time?   An average of 5 points per game can be pretty impressive if a player only played 5 minutes a game, but not so impressive if they averaged 38 minutes a game.   Actually, I'd rather know how long the coach played them rather than how many points they scored.  If a player got the 8th or 10th or 13th most playing time seems more telling about their basketball skills, especially since offense is only half of the game.

I've always thought it was ludicrous when analysts claim to show a player has gotten better from year to year by showing their points per game year over year.   Usually it is more a product of playing time and role in the offense.

Yes, MT, I hear you and I mostly agree.  However, the one thing points-per-game does tell you is a combination/overall rating of how valuable the coach thought the player was and (a little less) how well the player executed in whatever minutes were available during the previous year. It says nothing about how many points the athlete could have scored if played 40 minutes, but one assumes that the coach had a good reason for playing her only 6 minutes, etc.  So the ppg needs to be largely taken as the coaches evaluation of the player rather than an indication of the player's innate performance.

I guess it comes down to whether you would prefer to know what the coach thought of the player (vis a vis the alternatives) vs. an abstract performance quotient of points-per-40.  To interpret the coach's award of minutes, one would have to know who was playing in front of the player.  Playing behind Kelsey Plum and getting 6 minutes per game is not necessarily a bad thing.  Playing behind a mediocre player means something different.  Points-per-40 seems not to need that kind of information, but of course it does.  What if the six minutes you get in a game are almost always at the end during a blowout win or loss, against 3rd string opposition?  Then what is the significance of points scored?

Sadly, there is just no substitute for watching a player in game situations, and ideally getting as many different kinds of information as possible.  All of the above. When I review an upcoming opponent I pay a lot of attention to mpg as well a ppg.