PPS

[HC]

Through a twitter debate and the encouragement of my wife I've started blogging again.  I ran my PPS formula for the team for the first 8 games this season. My goal with PPS is to show how productive a player truly is by examining only stats that show up in a box score. I feel like hustle (while important) is overrated and a crutch for the talentless. Scores are low, no surprise. Will is waaaaaay down there, even Ryan and KVW are slightly below were they finished last year.

http://sectionee.blogspot.com/

I had to do these two posts in HTML which I had never done before, I think they came out ok.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Two suggestions to make this more helpful...

If you would tell people the formula for PPS, as to me it means "points per shot", a much more rudimentary formula than it appears you're using here, it would help put this in better context.

Also, if you have numbers for our players last year, it would be more fair to compare all of them to themselves than last year's 1st team all-conference (except for our players for whom that applies).  I.e., no one expects Vashil to be Kendrick.

[HC]

Player Productivity Score
I have the numbers somewhere, I will try to find them. In my post I think I mentioned the categories that go into the formula.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

That is true, but it's a little like quarterback rating--you know the factors it weighs, but not how heavily.

I think "sabermetrics" have been their own worst enemy with acceptance--by making it seem esoteric, they make themselves necessary to the equation, because who else can figure it out?  But they also make it seem superfluous because no one knows whence the number came, nor what it means in context.  E.g. I don't care about WAR nor about John Hollinger's numbers.

[HC]

Then you might not care about this either.  Everything is weighed evenly, which is a flaw.  Another flaw is that I really can't compare players from other conferences like the B1G 10 due to them playing better opponents and what not.  It has flaws like everything else, but I enjoy doing it and see some validity in it. 

I've used the formula with my pre algebra middle school math students and they enjoy cranking out the numbers for me from time to time as a class warm up.  Looking back, I can't find last years individual PPS but I did come across a post I made attempting to predict the HL tournament last year. The number in parenthesis is where they finished the regular season standings. Here are those results:
1) Detroit (3)         0.527
2) Valpo (1)           0.500
3) YSU (6)              0.462
4) CSU  (2)             0.457
5) Green Bay (7)   0.449
6) Milwaukee (4)   0.428
7) Butler  (5)         0.416
8) UIC  (9)              0.378
9) Loyola (10)        0.369
10) WSU  (8)          0.342

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Another flaw is that I really can't compare players from other conferences like the B1G 10 due to them playing better opponents and what not. 

I don't think that's a flaw.  If that were strictly true, then you couldn't compare a team with the #3 SOS (NPI) and the #66 SOS...even though the former is Michigan and the latter Indiana.

[StlVUFan]

That is true, but it's a little like quarterback rating--you know the factors it weighs, but not how heavily.

I think "sabermetrics" have been their own worst enemy with acceptance--by making it seem esoteric, they make themselves necessary to the equation, because who else can figure it out?  But they also make it seem superfluous because no one knows whence the number came, nor what it means in context.  E.g. I don't care about WAR nor about John Hollinger's numbers.

As a fan, I'd have to say that's a fair complaint.  I have no problem with WAR myself because I was introduced to SABRmetrics by Bill James' Baseball Abstract back in the days of Runs Created, and he also had a very anti-proprietary streak in him.  I can come very, very close to reproducing the exact RC formula because he published it for the world to see.  WAR, I think, is a more modern version of RC which also takes in defensive metrics and adjusts for park factors.  Then again, it may not be so much proprietary as no longer free (i.e. requiring a subscription to baseball prospectus or fangraphs).  I don't know how Bill James feels about that today, but back then he would have railed against such lack of transparency (he did in fact rail often against the Hirsch's (can't remember the name of their annual) and Sporting News for not sharing their data with the world).

I guess I trust WAR to be reasonable (no idea how accurate it is) because Bill James let me in once upon a time to the whole idea and I see WAR as simply the natural evolution of RC.  Then again, I may be really thinking of wOBA instead

[HC]

The other team I'm a fan of is IU.  My buddy runs their numbers.  Here is how their starting five has scored out this season as of Dec. 3.

Zeller:  .94
Watford:  .64
Hulls:  .54
Oladipo:  .64
Sheehey:  .49

Just as a comparison with Valpo.

[valporun]

My thoughts on WAR.... "Good God y'all, what is it GOOD for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN'"

[StlVUFan]

My thoughts on WAR.... "Good God y'all, what is it GOOD for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN'"

Hate to tell you, but I've heard that one before (several times, in fact). 

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Hate to tell you, but I've heard that one before (several times, in fact).

Several times is right...why I don't care for WAR is that different people calculate it different ways, to the point that one of the Tiger beat writers (MLB.com) invented digital "rain delay theatre" by tweeting out names of random players and having people make up a WAR rating for each of them.

It ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker.

[valporun]

WAR just seems like a stat that Bill James needed to create because he was bored with some of the old ones?

[StlVUFan]

WAR just seems like a stat that Bill James needed to create because he was bored with some of the old ones?

Technically, Bill James had something to do with VORP, but not WAR, I think.

In any case, WAR is technically not a stat, but an evaluation formula, and like most such ideas was created to learn more about what players have accomplished.  Accuracy and technique are entirely fair game for critique, but the objective behind them is to fill in gaps in our knowledge after realizing that, for example, the triple-crown stats (BA/HR/RBI) don't come close to telling the whole story of a player, much less form a valid basis for comparing players to each other when evaluating performance.

If that's what  you mean by "he was bored with some of the old ones", then I agree wholeheartedly

[HC]

Went back and looked at the first 8 games and my formula again.  Realized that I forgot to actually put how many rebounds each guy had.  The numbers felt low, and they look much better now.  Tonights game is not figured into to these numbers.

http://sectionee.blogspot.com/2012/12/pps-1st-8-games.html

[HC]

http://sectionee.blogspot.com/2012/12/11-game-wrap-up.html

Some pretty crummy numbers put up so far.  Hopefully these last three games the coaches/players can figure out their roles and rotations and the team will be comfortable and clicking come January 3rd against Loyola.

[HC]

Our numbers, just like our play, have slowly been improving throughout the season.

http://cbbpps.wordpress.com/valpo-pps-12-13/

Erik put up one of his highest PPS ever last game when he played closer to 20 minutes instead of being on the court closer to 30 minutes. Dority's numbers have gone down every game so far.  Hopefully he gets comfortable and finds his stroke.  KVW and Rowdy are playing at a higher level then last year.  I like what I'm seeing, and I'm happy to see the numbers slowly creeping higher as we get closer to conference play.

[HC]

If you'd like to see how the entire team is doing, http://cbbpps.wordpress.com/valpo-pps-12-13/

Here is what our last two games looked like, http://cbbpps.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/valpo-pps-for-games-on-12-and-14/