Efficiency

[SWC75]

Bud and the Manchild were just interviewing a guy, (didn't catch the anme), who said that Kentucky was better than Syracuse because they were more offensively efficient. Naturally, I had to check that.

Per ESPN's stats:

Syracuse 1799 FGA - 386 O-Rebs + 314 TO + (.475 x 565 FTA) = 1995 possessions in which they have scored 2277 points. 2277/1995 = 1.141 points per possession.

Kentucky 1642 - 363 + 340 + (.475 x 675) = 1940 possessions in which they scored 2256 points. 2256/1940 = 1.163.

So I guess he was right. We are averaging 66.5 possession per game. Kentucky is averaging 66.9. If both teams get 67 possessions at their normal efficiency, Syracuse would score 76 points and Kentucky would score 78.

But of course, they haven't gone against eachother's defesne. I don't think either team would get close to those numbers.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Can ( or does) that account for variations in defenses played against. For instance have we played against better or worse defenses than Kentucky.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[FortyFourCT]

Do you have the defensive effociency numbers? Also, do you know where each team ranks on Off and Def ?

 

[upperdeck]

where in these formulas does it account for he fouls taken in games that were meaningless..

if you are up 10 and get fouled and make them, your numbers look better without really having an effect on the game. if you miss them you still win. and the same for games that are out of hand.. subs in for both teams in 20 pt blow outs dont really tell a story.

 

[SWC75]

ESPN just had the team's own numbers. The others are available I'm sure but I've got a couple of other projects I want to do right now. What's interesting is that we have more offensive rebounds, they have more turnovers but they get to the line alot more than we do.

 

[dollarbill44]

People seriously use a statistic like this to determine who they think is a better team? The fact that the difference between the two in this category is so small makes it an even more ridiculous rationale for choosing either of the two.

I don't care either way, because it doesn't matter what any talking head says. Kentucky may be better. SU may be better. But people get way too carried away with statistics and numbers in assessing who is the better player/team/conference.

 

[BuffOrange]

Can ( or does) that account for variations in defenses played against. For instance have we played against better or worse defenses than Kentucky.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

That's what Pomeroy does. He has UK 2nd in offense and SU 9th.

 

[reedny]

Bud and the Manchild were just interviewing a guy, (didn't catch the anme), who said that Kentucky was better than Syracuse because they were more offensively efficient. Naturally, I had to check that.

Per ESPN's stats:

Syracuse 1799 FGA - 386 O-Rebs + 314 TO + (.475 x 565 FTA) = 1995 possessions in which they have scored 2277 points. 2277/1995 = 1.141 points per possession.

Kentucky 1642 - 363 + 340 + (.475 x 675) = 1940 possessions in which they scored 2256 points. 2256/1940 = 1.163.

So I guess he was right. We are averaging 66.5 possession per game. Kentucky is averaging 66.9. If both teams get 67 possessions at their normal efficiency, Syracuse would score 76 points and Kentucky would score 78.

But of course, they haven't gone against eachother's defesne. I don't think either team would get close to those numbers.

And Ky's numbers are (mostly) from the SEC!!

 

[Sgt Cuse]

People seriously use a statistic like this to determine who they think is a better team? The fact that the difference between the two in this category is so small makes it an even more ridiculous rationale for choosing either of the two.

I don't care either way, because it doesn't matter what any talking head says. Kentucky may be better. SU may be better. But people get way too carried away with statistics and numbers in assessing who is the better player/team/conference.

Maybe he didn't use the statistic to determine his assessment of the better team though. He could have watched both teams and thought that Kentucky looked more efficient on offense. It was SWC who analyzed the statement with data.

 

[newmexicuse]

Bud and the Manchild were just interviewing a guy, (didn't catch the anme), who said that Kentucky was better than Syracuse because they were more offensively efficient. Naturally, I had to check that.

Per ESPN's stats:

Syracuse 1799 FGA - 386 O-Rebs + 314 TO + (.475 x 565 FTA) = 1995 possessions in which they have scored 2277 points. 2277/1995 = 1.141 points per possession.

Kentucky 1642 - 363 + 340 + (.475 x 675) = 1940 possessions in which they scored 2256 points. 2256/1940 = 1.163.

So I guess he was right. We are averaging 66.5 possession per game. Kentucky is averaging 66.9. If both teams get 67 possessions at their normal efficiency, Syracuse would score 76 points and Kentucky would score 78.

But of course, they haven't gone against eachother's defesne. I don't think either team would get close to those numbers.

Great analysis as usual, SWC, but I wonder if our numbers are skewed by all of the transition points that we get off of TOs ? Do we get more than KY ? Also, we have had so many big runs where we look incredible, but there are long stretches where we only look average wo those runs, so it definitely creates the feeling of less efficiency.

 

[SWC75]

Maybe he didn't use the statistic to determine his assessment of the better team though. He could have watched both teams and thought that Kentucky looked more efficient on offense. It was SWC who analyzed the statement with data.

That's proably ture. His comment just made me want to see what the numbers said. My impression of Kentucky ahd been of a great defensive team that wasn't a great offensive team. We aren't great, either, but I thought we were a bit better, with more offesnive threats.