Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1

    Dawkins 1st, Scheyer 3rd in NCAA Offensive Rating


  2. #2
    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)

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by dukeENG2003 View Post
    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)
    That rating has a lot to do with efficiency and scoring per possession, I think. Wall is rated 17th in the SEC, he is averaging 16ppg, which is 7th in the SEC. My guess is that his turnovers (4 per game) and shooting % affect his score.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by dukeENG2003 View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    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.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post
    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/

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post
    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.
    Offensive rating is points per 100 possessions, according to basketball-reference.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Look who #7 is according to Ken Pom.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NYC

    If KenPom is right...

    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%)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by HCheek37 View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Question Individual Offensive Rating?

    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/
    __________________
    This is the team offensive rating definition. What is used for the individual player?

    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'

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    This is the team offensive rating definition. What is used for the individual player?

    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'
    Same thing for individuals as it is for teams.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Louisville, KY

    Not exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by airowe View Post
    Same thing for individuals as it is for teams.
    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.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by mus074 View Post
    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.
    I digress. It's very close though, right?


    Offensive Rating
    This is the personal version of team offensive efficiency.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Louisville, KY

    ?

    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.

  16. #16
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by mus074 View Post
    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.
    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

  18. #18
    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

  19. #19
    Dawkins & Scheyer are now 1 & 2.

Similar Threads

  1. Rating College Coaches
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-21-2013, 12:50 PM
  2. Johnny Dawkins on NCAA ethics panel
    By Jim3k in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 06:23 PM
  3. Computer rating systems
    By appzter in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-16-2009, 10:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •