BuzzerBeater Forums

Hmm, example:

You go to a club, you see 18 guys smoking a sigaret there and 2 guys who aren't smoking. Then you ask this question: Whom of you guys smokes?

Then at least 90% will say they smoke, do you actually believe that 90% of the people in the whole world smokes?

Just a small crazy example of course, but I think my point is quite clear.

If those guards would have had 100 shots they would be close to that number of 82.9, but they only took 12 and 18 shots.


Last edited by BB-Patrick at 3/4/2008 4:09:51 PM

Thanks, PatjeBono,

But in sports, if we say "Such-and-such a player was shooting at 80%" we usually mean that they actually have scored at that level. It's not unreasonable that people coming to BB expect that when they see a rating saying that players were shooting at a certain percentage that would be reflected in the players' actual performance.

What you're saying is that the players in my team at SG were in theory shooting at 82.9 points per 100 shots (based on the quality of their shooting and the quality of the opponents' defence, etc) but in practice their stats show that their performance in the game was better than that?

So now my question is how can the computer know what their 'in theory' performance was? What are the variables which explain the difference between the 'in theory' performance of 82.9 points per 100 shots, and their actual scoring rate of 96 points per 100 shots? Just good luck? Or something more controllable?

Put another way, is it the case that the 'Matchup ratings' are like the 'team ratings' (in that they describe the relative strengths of the teams, not the relative actual acheivements in a particular game) rather than like the box score, describing actual events on the court? I've assumed they are a factual representation of the players' performance, but you seem to be saying that they are not...

The team matchup rating figure for shooting from the SG position is lower than either of my players actually acheived. So something must be reducing the team matchup rating.

Note that this is not about tactics or anything, it's just a maths question. How can the SG matchup rating give a points per 100 shots of 82.9 when my actual SGs were both shooting a better rate than that?

In other words, what other variables go into calculating that 'points per 100 shots' rating? It clearly isn't just a reflection of the SG's scoring rate in the game...

did they shot 100 times? no
that's the variable

Thanks, PatjeBono,

So now my question is how can the computer know what their 'in theory' performance was? What are the variables which explain the difference between the 'in theory' performance of 82.9 points per 100 shots, and their actual scoring rate of 96 points per 100 shots? Just good luck?

yes

if you flip a high number of coins you expect to have 50% heads and 50% tails
but if you flip only 10 coins you could easily have 6 heads and 4 tails
that's a 20% difference between the expected value (the MR) and the real result
and it's just based on luck

Last edited by mark_lenders at 3/4/2008 6:31:57 PM

good job my niece isnt reading your post...

please refrain from using such profanities...

you were down by 7 anyway and your defending 2-3 against an team being more offensive outside and you have nothing special to offer in terms of scoring yourself?

this no where near qualifies for this thread..

grow up

his defense was better then your inside and outside attack + his outside attack was better then your outside-defense, rebounds dont help if your players aint scoring, anyway your winning streak find a bitter end, but come on no one wins forever.
and edit your post a bit, if im a BB i would be pissed off if someone callin my game f$&$/§$ b/&%%§$".

so calm down and prepare for your next game ;)

thanks for the good word, i most certainly will be preparing for the next game and have learned not to go away from my strengths, which in this case should've been run n' gun. c'est la vie. i just wish my players had more of a mind of their own and my coach had done a better job tactically ;-).

I'm not asking why did I lose.
Actually, I'm asking why did I lose this bad? (2421974)

As you can see, my outside scoring is better than his perimeter defense, and my perimeter defense is better than his outside scoring. Nevertheless, he had better scoring percentage, or to be precise, less bad...
I know he had better inside scoring, but we both played RnG.
Could it be that the offensive flow made this difference?
Your thoughts are welcomed

thanks

sorry - sounds like you need a new thread for this... this is for the real whiners!!

I guess you are just another victim of the random factor.. or players off nights...

I think half the time we can all suffer from analysis paralysis.. there are so many things/formulas we dont know yet we are forever trying to answer questions like this blindly...

I guess you are right...
I've just noticed my players were in a very bad foul trouble. My starting SF was fouled out, his sub got injured the second sub got into foul trouble as a PF.
Nevertheless, I still can't understand why he had better scoring percentage...