Historical Efficiency

[cap2nine]

All statisical analyses has their qualifications. The chief one in my numbers is strength of schedule, (and of the era). One thing I will never buy is that contributory statisitics, (steals, turnovers, rebounds) are more important than the bottom line stats to which they contribute, (average points scored and given up per possession).

Of course I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into alternative analysis and I think offensive and defensive efficiency ratings have their merits. It's just fodder for discussion. I just feel it's a poor method of comparison for the 2010 / 2012 example. Although, I have to apologize if I'm missing the "strength of schedule " component of the formula. Also, I never said the "contributory " stats were more important but there's no doubt that they are the fine-tuning variables of the broad-stroke efficiency ratings.

 

[SWC75]

Of course I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into alternative analysis and I think offensive and defensive efficiency ratings have their merits. It's just fodder for discussion. I just feel it's a poor method of comparison for the 2010 / 2012 example. Although, I have to apologize if I'm missing the "strength of schedule " component of the formula. Also, I never said the "contributory " stats were more important but there's no doubt that they are the fine-tuning variables of the broad-stroke efficiency ratings.

There isn't a strength of schedule component: that's it's weakness. I have yet to see a method of analyzing things that doesn't have some weakness: you just have to be aware of them.

Steals, turnovers and rebounds are only important to the extent that they prevent the other team from scoring on a possession ro help you score on your possession. That's what I mean by "contributory" stats.