Birdofredum Sawin wrote:Is it gauche to quote oneself?
theMoMa wrote:t's folly to use something like "power percentage" or "domination of a particular category" or "subjective assessment of 'good buzzes'" to assess whether a player can consistently get tossups. Rather, it seems to me that you need to look to team performance. I'd ask something like "how good was Team X at getting tossups, and how important was Player Y to Team X's tossup-getting ability?"
That idea from the player poll thread got me thinking: how exactly would you go about asking how good Team X was at getting tossups, and how important Player Y was to Team X's tossup-getting ability?
My first guess was that (player tossup PPG / team tossup PPG) * (team overall PPG / top team overall PPG) would be an interesting stat. Essentially, that stat asks "how good was this team relative to the rest of the teams, and what percentage of the tossups did the player get to contribute to that?" (I used team PPG instead of team tossup PPG in the team multiplier because it captures the fact that better teams are better at bonuses, and each tossup a player contributes comes along with the whole team's bonus prowess.) But it proved to be too similar to raw player PPG, and didn't yield many notable results.
My next guess was that squaring both team overall PPG and top team overall PPG would possibly yield more interesting results, since the top teams would be further separated from the weaker teams. (I got the idea of squaring the numerator and denominator from baseball's Pythagorean theorem win percentage formula.) The results of this were indeed interesting, because they jibed very closely with how I might subjectively rank the players.
I ran the numbers on the stats from the ACF Nationals top bracket and uploaded them to Google Sheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
(Note that several talented players, including Evan, Richard, Jacob, Trevor, Jordan, etc., are left off here because it's only the top bracket. I used only the top bracket because you'd have to use adjustments to rank players who didn't play common or comparable schedules.)
I'm not sure this tells you anything other than roughly how I think players could be ranked based on the relative strengths of their tossups performances and their teams' points, but I think it's still kind of cool.