View Single Post
10-15-2012, 02:35 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,842
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think it's just a perfect example of how cutoffs can be cruel to some and beneficial to others.

I like this system as a bit of a "different" look at the better top scorers in history. Maybe instead of a hard "top-10, top-15, top-20 pace" system, it could use certain adjusted PPG thresholds so that there can be more or less than 10, 15, 20 in each category based on the season.
I think it's more than cutoffs at work though. The problem is that a player could score 90 points in 82 games and finish in the top 10... but because another player scores 46 points in 41 games, the player with 90 points gets no credit for top 10 pace.

Also, there can already be more than (e.g.) 10 players at a top 10 pace. It's just that only 10 players with (effectively) 41+ games can be at a top 10 pace.

First, I think the 41 game threshold is too low. It should be at least ~55-60 games IMO. That would give a lot more significance to the player's "pace" than a simple half season does. Second, it might be better to include any and all players that finished in the top X over a full season. IOW, include all the actual top 10 players. Calculate the players that would be in the top 10 with a minimum of 55-60 games, and include those players as well. Use the latter threshold for players with less than 55-60 games. Then the results would be a lot fairer, including players with shortened seasons among the top 10 in pace, but not penalizing those players who played through injury and/or "paced" themselves for a full season.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote