2008-2009 Shocker Men's Prouty Ratings

[ShockTalk]

Uhhhh....no stars here.

"* Improved from previous game."

[1979Shocker]

I forgot to take the asterisk off TEAM. It's gone now.

[im4wsu]

The Plus/Minus rating updated through Ill State Game (Bradley still missing)

Hatch did not fare well in Normal.

[im4wsu]

Comparing the ranking of the teams non-walk-on players using the +/- compared to the Prouty, through the Illinois State game.

[ShockTalk]

When you combine the two rankings:

Hannah 4
Murry 7
Durley 7
Clemente 9
Hawkins 12
Hatch 12
Stutz 13
Kyles 14
Chamberlain 16
Ellis 19
Griskenas 19

You still have the same top 5 as in the Prouty, (which also happens to be our starting 5), but the +/- gives balance to those players who do contribute in other ways than scoring. Hatch now jumps up in the ranking to tie Hawkins; he also is generally first off the bench. Hatch starts getting his shot to drop and he'll be pressing Hawkins for more playing time. Stutz appears to be too high, but I think there's a good reason. Games where he can dominate because of his size he does do very well. I though Ellis would be slightly higher, but one thing is for sure....Kyles needs more minutes!

[1979Shocker]

Wichita State vs Cleveland State Prouty Ratings

              CSU     All 
Player       Game    Games 
Hannah*      0.436   0.395
Clemente*    0.469   0.370
Murry*       0.406   0.360
Durley*      0.478   0.308
Hawkins*     0.430   0.306
Stutz*       0.403   0.266 
Kyles*       0.588   0.264 
Chamberlain  0.079   0.263
Griskenas    0.000   0.249
Ellis        0.103   0.236
Hatch        0.083   0.229
Michael      0.000   0.226
Britton*     0.503   0.108
Steven       0.003   0.001
TEAM*        0.424   0.377

Team Winning Percentage: 0.500

* Improved from previous game.

[Snapshot9]

I would like to see a direct comparison of the Prouty ratings for the Creighton and Cleveland State games.

[im4wsu]

I would like to see a direct comparison of the Prouty ratings for the Creighton and Cleveland State games.

Here you go!

[ShockTalk]

Not sure how much this really tells you, since the team's winning % at the time goes into the calculation. Our winning % at the time of the Creighton game was about at its low point, yet we were back to .500 with the Cleveland St game.

Now if you can throw the winning % out or use the same team winning % for both games, that might give you a better comparison of how each player performed.

Feel free to correct me 1979Shocker or im4wsu.

[1979Shocker]

Not sure how much this really tells you, since the team's winning % at the time goes into the calculation. Our winning % at the time of the Creighton game was about at its low point, yet we were back to .500 with the Cleveland St game.

Now if you can throw the winning % out or use the same team winning % for both games, that might give you a better comparison of how each player performed.

Feel free to correct me 1979Shocker or im4wsu.

Here's the comparison without the Win Rating.

              CU      CSU
Starters     Game    Game 
Clemente     0.503   0.484
Hannah       0.432   0.464
Murry        0.379   0.408
Durley       0.293   0.370
Hawkins      0.254   0.481

Reserves
Chamberlain  0.583   0.066
Ellis        0.562   0.104
Stutz        0.435   0.517
Hatch        0.293   0.039
Griskenas    0.167   0.000*
Kyles        0.000*  0.750
Michael      0.000*  0.000*
Britton      0.000*  0.667
Steven       0.000*  0.000
TEAM         0.386   0.399

*did not play.

[Snapshot9]

Just as I thought, although the Creighton game was close, the Cleveland State game looks to be our best overall effort.

[im4wsu]

The updated +/- ratings through Cleveland St game. Bradley game is still excluded.

[ShockTalk]

OK, I'm confused again (and again, and again). 1979Shocker - If the winning % goes into the formula and at the time of the Creighton game, we had a lower %, shouldn't that have a more negative impacted on the players' rating? As a team, we went from .038 difference between the Creighton and Cleveland St games with the Win Rating to .051 difference without it.

[1979Shocker]

OK, I'm confused again (and again, and again). 1979Shocker - If the winning % goes into the formula and at the time of the Creighton game, we had a lower %, shouldn't that have a more negative impacted on the players' rating? As a team, we went from .038 difference between the Creighton and Cleveland St games with the Win Rating to .051 difference without it.

What I gave above when calculating the average using just the first three categories was wrong. I had an extra cell in the calculations.

Here are the values for each of the four categories used to calculate the Prouty Rating for both the Creighton and Cleveland State games (to 5 places). The first Total Rating is the average without the Win Rating followed by the Total Rating with the Win Rating.

                 Offensive  Total   Possessions Win     Total
                 Efficiency Offense Gained      Rating  Rating
Creighton        0.54412    0.43500 0.17750             0.38554
                 0.54412    0.43500 0.17750     0.38889 0.38638
Cleveland State  0.66038    0.41500 0.12250             0.39929
                 0.66038    0.41500 0.12250     0.50000 0.42447

You'll notice the Win Rating didn't really make a different for the two Creighton ratings.

[ShockTalk]

That makes more sense, narrowed the difference between the two games, and makes them almost a "push". The ratings that the players received would also be lowered. Thanks 1979 Shocker.