Hard to put a lot of stock in that list based on the players who don't even appear on it (John Wall for example)
Hard to put a lot of stock in that list based on the players who don't even appear on it (John Wall for example)
Offensive rating is basically a personal measure of offensive efficiency. John Wall isn't on the list, because as good as he has been, he has not been super efficient due to lots of turnovers.
My problem with the list is that it is hard to gauge who is a bit player on a team (Andre Dawkins for example) and who is a heavy usage player. Andre has been very efficient offensviely but he doesn't have very many possessions per game go through him.
This list at Ken Pom ranks the players Offensive Rating with their usage numbers in parentheses. If also restricts the lists by how much usage each player has (as you scroll down) and then has the ORtg for all players at the bottom. The Ken Pom List was through last Sunday. Looks like John's Gardner-Webb performance moved him from 10th to 3rd.
Incidentally, John Wall who has used 27.2% of his team's possessions comes in at 58th on the Ken Pom list of players who have used at least 24% of their teams possessions.
It would be helpful to know what offensive rating is. I imagine is it some sort of algorithm of offensive statistics (pct. ft pct. 3-pt pct, assists, etc.) but withough knowing what goes into offensive rating it doesn't mean much.
Look who #7 is according to Ken Pom.
I will be a very very happy person come March....
http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=North%20Carolina
He has North Carolina at 19-12 (8-8), including 9 and 18 point losses to Duke.
His probabilities also doesn't have Duke losing another game (all chance of winning is over 50%)
This statement is a little bit inaccurate... he does have each game predicted as a win since the probability is over 50%, but his projected record is 27-4. This is the composite probability over all games.
I find it interesting that the game with the lowest win probability is at Clemson (54%). I think he's underselling UNC quite a bit, perhaps due to their early season losses. No way we have a 93% chance of beating them at home. I don't think either team has EVER had a 93% chance of winning in the series, no matter who they throw out onto the floor.
This is the team offensive rating definition. What is used for the individual player?Originally Posted by allenmurray
It would be helpful to know what offensive rating is. I imagine is it some sort of algorithm of offensive statistics (pct. ft pct. 3-pt pct, assists, etc.) but withough knowing what goes into offensive rating it doesn't mean much.
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/web...ats_explained/
__________________
sagegrouse
'Christmas tree trip to Buffalo Pass resulted in a handsome Engelmann Spruce but was marred by my dumb play of getting stuck in soft snow on a road that appeared open for 4WD but was actually closed. An immense sno-cat headed for some open terrain skiing pulled me out'
The individualized Orating is not the same as the team offensive efficiency. The team number is purely points scored per possession (or per 100 possessions) and then adjusted for level of competition. The individual number is described by Pomeroy thusly:
Offensive rating (ORtg): A measure of personal offensive efficiency developed by Dean Oliver. The formula is very complicated, but accurate. For a detailed explanation, buy Basketball on Paper.
Honestly, I cannot say I know. I would think it is similar, yes. But the actual formula is too "complicated" and esoteric for me to say what it truly is or is not. All I have is my faith in Pomeroy's statement that it is "accurate." But I haven't seen the proof of that either.
So I think I have taken our digression and hopefully sucked out any possible remaining value from this meandering, thus allowing the main topic to resume. Please carry on.
Offensive rating is the gold standard of offensive basketball statistics. It must be combined with usage, though, or else seldom utilized offensive players benefiting from the defensive attention the opposing players give his team's star players look better than they are.
That said, any offensive rating above 140 is completely ridiculous regardless of usage or even the opposition.
To put this in perspective: Last season, Ty Lawson led the nation with a 134.3 offensive rating. Over the last 5 seasons, no NCAA player for any team at any level of usage has posted a higher offensive rating. In three of the last five season, no NCAA player has achieved an offensive rating over 130.
As someone who tracks it for his own statheady purposes, I can attest that it is a complicated formula, which I won't (and don't even think I can) replicate here.
I did, however, provide a brief explanation of this last year, which you can find here.
Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.
You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner
You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke
Best thing about this list is the awesome picture of Taylor King if you click through Scheyer's link on the list.
Here's the shortcut to it.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/news/photo/...51418515150787
Dawkins & Scheyer are now 1 & 2.