BuzzerBeater Forums

For me it shows bullshit. My pf went without subs with 73.3% shotting, hitted three pointer, made some free throws and it shows 119 per 100 shots. Are you kidding? its atleast 160! or sometimes your player goes 0/6 and it shows like 9.5-10 per 100shots. What the hell? it must be 0 since no free throws.

Actually i dont pay attention at those stats, they seem to be meaningless more or less. All i do i go to buzzer-manager.com and look for player efficiency per 48mins. Thats real efficiency stat.

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 2/19/2012 4:57:19 AM

points per/100 are more valuable compared to the game ratings imo. Be careful when you say they are total bullshit.

Most of the time when you win the points per/100 and still have worse ratings, you won the game.

A sample size of 5-20 shots isn't going tot be enough to always display the results you would expect if your player was to shoot 100 shots. I'm sure if you did intensive significance testing on the pointers per 100 points, you would find that there are few, if any cases where the scoring is signficantly differnt than what the points per 100 would indicate.

Simply put, the smaller the amount of shots, the more possible variance is accepted and doesn't negate the original statistic. Imagine a 50% shooter. It would not be at all strange for him to make 3/4 shots or even 6/8 shots in one game. But if over a large string of games he hits 75 of 100 shots...you would begin to question whether or not the 50% is correct.

OO, got it now. So it means how many would he scored if he would have shoted 100 times?:D

but still, it doesnt mean anything. If my shoter would have been better shape he would have shoted 8/10 from downtown and i would have won game. If my oponent would have tie'd i would have won. Y dont it display how many times of 100 i would have won if he have tie'd?

For the god sake, if i had a chance of 50% to born as a girl, why dont they show gender possibility out of 100 births?:D
Like: your center Ernes kanter would have borned 49 times of 100 as a girl lololololo....
It means nothing since i am male and my players male. Doesnt matter what would have been:D
Or another good one: If your pg kyle irving would have stopped breathing he would have been blue in a matter of 4 minutes 57 times out of 100:DDDD

To conclue its very, very important index!
In the other hand i am happy that at lleast BB Gm;s have nice sence of humor.

For me it would be better if insted of those would would kind of "statistics" would be some real efficiency stat.

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 2/19/2012 1:00:45 PM

My interpretation has always been that if you ran the game 100 times (or whatever significantly larger sample size), the points per 100 shots is what you could expect it to regulate out to over that larger sample. You'll find games where your SGs might shoot 14-16, and another where they'll shoot 2-16, but have a very similar points per 100 game rate, you're just getting games on the extreme sides of the simulation engine.

I'm really not sure. I believe FTs count in the real life "points per shot" statistic, but that is a direct calculation, rather than an estimation like BB. I would assume no, because by and large I don't think FTs are a consistent variable- the game engine can somewhat predict how well a player will play based on their abilities (for example, a guy with a 15/11 JS/JR skill against a player with a 12 OD should have a calculable estimation) while I believe FTs are not as affirmatively built into the game engine, just because drawing shooting fouls (or drawing fouls when the other team is in the bonus) is more random than the likelihood of hitting, say, a 3pt shot.

For me it shows bullshit.

Actually, it's called math. You should learn it. I am very confident that a computer can calculate a simple mathematical formula correctly. In the examples you made up, the statistic is by position, so bench players who put in time at that position will effect the result.

For me it shows bullshit.

Actually, it's called math. You should learn it. I am very confident that a computer can calculate a simple mathematical formula correctly. In the examples you made up, the statistic is by position, so bench players who put in time at that position will effect the result.

Woe, no need to be condecending.

His point on why he thought it was bullshit was a valid one based on how he interpreted the ratings. And your explanation of it being a simple mathematical formula isnt correct either, at least it doesnt refute the point that he was making. The other explanations in this thread are far more accurate.