3-6-16 K-State Player Per 100 Ratings and Team ADV Stats

[kso_FAN]

The first edition of 2015-16 Per 100s are here!

Each player's stats are adjusted only for the possessions they are on the floor using their minutes percentage, games played, and K-State's average possessions per game.



Last year's final per 100s are posted here for comparison.

[pissclams]

i don't recognize any of those names

[Trim]

Come on, _FAN.

[kso_FAN]

i don't recognize any of those names

Come on, _FAN.

[pissclams]

thank you. 

[Mixed-Nutz]

We need to drastically improve our eFG% and tighten up our Turnover%.

[Skipper44]

If we are going to be a bubble team we need Hopper and Westicles to get their 3 pt% somewhere near the 30s instead of combining to get there

[kso_FAN]

The JYC nature of this team is enjoyable with Oboarding over 35% and FT rate over 45%. Also, TOs are way down so far (16.4%), but so is shooting (46.5%). We will need shooting to improve to be a tournament team.

['taterblast]

DJamer stud status = confirmed

wish he could get back to 100% healthy

[pissclams]

DJamer stud status = confirmed

wish he could get back to 100% healthy

yup.  now, where are all the kat fans who doubted him?  their silent tears are delicious.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Why the hell are these stats presented in per 100 instead of per 40?

It would be like if baseball did era per 25 innings of something.

[kso_FAN]

Why the hell are these stats presented in per 100 instead of per 40?

It would be like if baseball did era per 25 innings of something.

Per 100 possessions for individual stats is the common way for calculating individual possession based stats. Its an easy round number to work with I suppose. And really, calculating per 40 possessions doesn't make any more sense. Its not like you are talking about stats per minute or 40 minutes (I assume that's where you got per 40). Maybe you could do the calculations per the average possessions in a college game (70 this year), but that doesn't make any more sense than 100. JMHO.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I want them to reflect actual game numbers 

[kso_FAN]

I want them to reflect actual game numbers 

They are a different type of stat, plenty of people already provide per game stats. I guess you could make a per game stat that reflects if a player played every minute of every game, but that makes no more sense than going per 100 possessions.

What these stats do is allow you to see what each player really does when he's on the floor and compare production between guys that don't play the same amount of minutes. I think they are a useful tool.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I understand the point is comparison. Just don't see why 100 is used when an actual per game metric could be.  The bigger the multiplier the wider the discrepancy among comps

[kso_FAN]

I understand the point is comparison. Just don't see why 100 is used when an actual per game metric could be.  The bigger the multiplier the wider the discrepancy among comps

I'm not for sure, but I think when possession based offensive and defensive efficiency numbers started being used in the NBA they used points per possession multiplied by 100. I think individual player stats per 100 came from the same thinking. It makes sense that the NBA advanced stats started that way because there are around 100 possessions (on both offense and defense) per game for NBA teams. When it filtered down to college, most people kept the per 100 because it made sense to people who were used to advanced stats. Per 65 or 70 may work better for college under your logic and would make some sense, but I'm used to per 100 and the comparisons now so I'll probably stick with that.

[Cire]

Need a 3rd three guy bad


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pissclams]

I understand the point is comparison. Just don't see why 100 is used when an actual per game metric could be.  The bigger the multiplier the wider the discrepancy among comps

I'm not for sure, but I think when possession based offensive and defensive efficiency numbers started being used in the NBA they used points per possession multiplied by 100. I think individual player stats per 100 came from the same thinking. It makes sense that the NBA advanced stats started that way because there are around 100 possessions (on both offense and defense) per game for NBA teams. When it filtered down to college, most people kept the per 100 because it made sense to people who were used to advanced stats. Per 65 or 70 may work better for college under your logic and would make some sense, but I'm used to per 100 and the comparisons now so I'll probably stick with that.

come on. his logic doesn't make any sense and anyone with a basic understanding of statistics knows that.
per 40 has no more claim on legitimacy as it relates to a game's statistic than per 100, (actually less).

[kso_FAN]

I understand the point is comparison. Just don't see why 100 is used when an actual per game metric could be.  The bigger the multiplier the wider the discrepancy among comps

I'm not for sure, but I think when possession based offensive and defensive efficiency numbers started being used in the NBA they used points per possession multiplied by 100. I think individual player stats per 100 came from the same thinking. It makes sense that the NBA advanced stats started that way because there are around 100 possessions (on both offense and defense) per game for NBA teams. When it filtered down to college, most people kept the per 100 because it made sense to people who were used to advanced stats. Per 65 or 70 may work better for college under your logic and would make some sense, but I'm used to per 100 and the comparisons now so I'll probably stick with that.

come on. his logic doesn't make any sense and anyone with a basic understanding of statistics knows that.
per 40 has no more claim on legitimacy as it relates to a game's statistic than per 100, (actually less).

Agree, the per 40 makes less sense. I get his point about being closer to the actual number of possessions in a college game.

At the end of the day, 100 is fine.

[Belvis Noland]

is there any way to tweak the statistical measurements to improve Budke's numbers? 

[kso_FAN]

is there any way to tweak the statistical measurements to improve Budke's numbers? 

My recommendation is to play him less so that his minutes percentage drops below 25% and I can take him off the list.

[Mixed-Nutz]

Need a 3rd three guy bad


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Westicle needs to improve his %eFG that would really help. Hopper should be shooting a tad better from the outside. Hopefully the flush gets in a groove soon and get buckets off the bench. His defense has been good.

[CHONGS]

guys guys guys, the concept of "percent" is really hard for some to grasp.

Here a primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage

maybe some day we can even talk about mill(e)s, but that might be a pipe dream

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The only reason a multiplier is used at all is to make small numbers bigger so people used to seeing a number larger than 1 are more comfortable reading. Neither 40, 70, or 100 make more sense than the other.

I said 40 because I brain farted on mintutes. 100 is purely arbitrary at the cbb level. At least 70 would give another usable number because it shows what someone would score if they played the whole game (like era) rather than just a random multiple of the ppp. If you really wanted to do that you could just revise the per multiplier each week based upon average possessions per game.

Not criticizing the presentation, just curious where the number came from. That's been answered. TY

[CHONGS]

I mean when was the last time someone shot 100 free throws in a game?  So arbitrary.