04-02-2021, 05:58 AM
I see I've created a monster.
My original point was only to be careful of statements about what the numbers really are.
The chart seems like a reasonable attempt to make an overall value statistic, particularly for efficiency. However, volume matters as well. A player who plays 40 minutes is more important/better than a player who plays 2 minutes per game regardless of how the per 40 minute stats work out. Efficiency also depends upon one's role. For example, who ends up taking the shot when the shot clock is winding down and no good look is available?
But the bigger issue is that the stats simply don't carry enough information to determine something like best player. It's a starting point, or a point, but in the end you have to watch and evaluate.
The Stanford entries in the chart are a good example. While Brink may be a key cog that got Stanford to its current level, I don't think she has been either a better player or more important player to Stanford than Williams. And I don't think it's close. Yet Brink comes out way ahead of Williams on this value scale. Maybe she is more efficient, but not better (at least not yet).
For McDonald versus Bueckers, I think McDonald's best argument is value to team. Bueckers makes a good UConn team better. It appears to me that McDonald makes an otherwise not particularly good Arizona team into a Final Four participant. Maybe that takes a better player.
My original point was only to be careful of statements about what the numbers really are.
The chart seems like a reasonable attempt to make an overall value statistic, particularly for efficiency. However, volume matters as well. A player who plays 40 minutes is more important/better than a player who plays 2 minutes per game regardless of how the per 40 minute stats work out. Efficiency also depends upon one's role. For example, who ends up taking the shot when the shot clock is winding down and no good look is available?
But the bigger issue is that the stats simply don't carry enough information to determine something like best player. It's a starting point, or a point, but in the end you have to watch and evaluate.
The Stanford entries in the chart are a good example. While Brink may be a key cog that got Stanford to its current level, I don't think she has been either a better player or more important player to Stanford than Williams. And I don't think it's close. Yet Brink comes out way ahead of Williams on this value scale. Maybe she is more efficient, but not better (at least not yet).
For McDonald versus Bueckers, I think McDonald's best argument is value to team. Bueckers makes a good UConn team better. It appears to me that McDonald makes an otherwise not particularly good Arizona team into a Final Four participant. Maybe that takes a better player.