The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

A few weeks ago, I posted Player Efficiency Ratings for UAB using the Prouty System. The rating takes all of the basketball stats on a box score into account. It has four parts, as shown below:

1. Total points/{(Field goals attempted x 2) + Free throws attempted}= Offensive efficiency
2. {Total points + (Assists x 2) - Turnovers}/Minutes played = Total Offense
3. {Total Rebounds + Steals + (Blocks x 2) - Fouls}/Minutes played = Possessions Gained
4. Minutes played/(Total Team Minutes/5) x Team Winning % = Win Rating.

Here are this year's players efficiency ratings. (I did not include Moten because of the amount of time played)

1. Jordan Swing .427
2. Rod Rucker .408
3. Fahro Alihodzic .349
4. Rob Williams .347
5. Terrence Jones .322
6. Preston Purifoy .308
7. Quincy Taylor .300
8. Isiah Jones .265
9. Alexander Scotland Williamson .170

Here are UAB's top 25 Player Efficiency ratings of all time.

1. Oliver Robinson (1981-82) .531
2. Stanley Jackson (1991-92) .484
3. Steve Mitchell (1984-85) .483
4. Andy Kennedy (1990-91) .480
5. Elbert Rogers (1991-92) .4786

6. Donell Taylor (2004-05) .4785
7. Paul Delaney (2008-09) .4779
8. Reginald Turner (1988-89) .476
9. Robert Vaden (2007-08) .472
10. Jack Kramer (1989-90) .471

11. Steve Mitchell (1985-86) .4703
12. Robert Vaden (2008-09) .470
13. Tracy Foster (1986-87) .4686
14. Robert Shannon (1993-94) .4685
15. Andy Kennedy (1988-89) .468

16. Oliver Robinson (1980-81) .466
17. Morris Finley (2002-03) .4653
18. Elijah Millsap (2009-10) .4651
19. Aaron Johnson (2010-11) .4646
20. Andy Kennedy (1989-90) .460

21. Squeaky Johnson (2005-06) .459
22. Carter Long (1993-94) .458
23. Michael Charles (1987-88) .4573
24. Carlos Williams (1996-97) .4568
25. Cameron Moore (2010-11) .454

How far down that list of yours do we have to go to find swing?

I didn't rank them all. Remember, a teams winning percentage affects their rating, so that is part of the reason this years players are low.

A comparison: Swings .427 is the same as Paul Delaneys in Mike Davis's first year.

(03-14-2013 11:14 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  I didn't rank them all. Remember, a teams winning percentage affects their rating, so that is part of the reason this years players are low.

A comparison: Swings .427 is the same as Paul Delaneys in Mike Davis's first year.

Ahh, thanks for pointing that out.

The numbers are low because we lost; we didn't lose because the numbers are low.

I assume then it's more useful for comparing members on the same team?

(03-14-2013 11:22 PM)sadolakced Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 11:14 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  I didn't rank them all. Remember, a teams winning percentage affects their rating, so that is part of the reason this years players are low.

A comparison: Swings .427 is the same as Paul Delaneys in Mike Davis's first year.

Ahh, thanks for pointing that out.

The numbers are low because we lost; we didn't lose because the numbers are low.

I assume then it's more useful for comparing members on the same team?

I guess. Win % is an element of the rating (see #4). In doing this research, the #'s this year were fairly typical of most years. It's just that the outstanding players's ratings are much better. In some year's you can see where a really good winning % helps a player's rating (See Cam Moore). Example, look at #24 and #25. Carlos Williams (#24) was a much better player than Cam, but played on a bad team. Cam (#25) played on a team with a high winning percentage, which helped his rating.

I think for the most part, its a good system. There are better systems. I'm just not math-savvy enough to understand them or I don't have all the data necessary to use them.

MB, interesting. Thanks!

& it also doesn't mean MVP for the top guy.

If I had to pick one player that we could not afford to lose at this point, it would have been Rucker.