Stanford Player Performances

Here are my player performances for the Stanford game:



Athlete PER PER/Min

Tyler Haws 35.00 1.00 What's up with those missed FTS??

Kyle Collinsworth 28.75 0.80 Another game where he filled up the stat sheet

Nate Austin 22.00 0.85 Very efficient game

Anson Winder 20.50 0.98 He's hitting the 3 ball!

Eric Mika 12.00 0.46 Luckily we don't need to depend on him yet

Matt Carlino 10.75 0.49 Matty Basketball! The announcers loved his "no filter" attacking style although I didn't realize he had so many TOs

Frank Bartley IV 3.75 0.34 Impressed that he hit a 3 because I didn't think he had much of an outside shot

Josh Sharp 2.75 0.69 Did well for the mins he got

Skyler Halford 1.75 0.22

Luke Worthington -1.00 -0.09



I think these new "no hands" calls will help Haws. Imagine if Jimmer had played with these rules!!

Jimmer was too busy crossing pplayers over. :-)



Yes, MC can TO PDQ. But, he was handling some pretty intense pressure from quick guards. Like KC, if he doesn't get too reckless in his reckless abandonment, he is great.



Good stuff. I'm not familiar with this formula, but will have to get up to speed.

Also, what was up with the crappy ESPN feed? Anyone else get that? 3 times in the first half the video would freeze but the audio would continue. The funny thing is that the video would only freeze for maybe 20 seconds but like a minute or more would go by when it came back. It happened at the end of the first half with over a minute left and when the video came back it was suddenly the half time show.

I had no trouble with the feed.

This is the problem with your formula. The second leading scorer for the cougs, who shot above .600 from the field and a decent clip from the line is your lowest rated player. We don't win that game without Matt Carlino. He single handedly made a lead, and then extended one that we didn't give back the rest of the night.



You can't say that about any of the other players that night, even Haws. If Carlino wasn't taken out of the game with poor officiating in the first half, he would have continued to burn up the Cardinals. He was unstoppable.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
This is the problem with your formula. The second leading scorer for the cougs, who shot above .600 from the field and a decent clip from the line is your lowest rated player. We don't win that game without Matt Carlino. He single handedly made a lead, and then extended one that we didn't give back the rest of the night.



You can't say that about any of the other players that night, even Haws. If Carlino wasn't taken out of the game with poor officiating in the first half, he would have continued to burn up the Cardinals. He was unstoppable.

Stats will only ever tell you part of the story. To be completely accurate, I had him as the 6th lowest rated player and he shot 50% from the floor. I agree that I love how he played and he had a huge impact, but no matter how you slice and dice it he had 7 TOs. I'm not saying my formula is perfect, but I like to use it as an objective analysis of how the players perform. To break out how I came to Carlino's rating:



Pts: 26 +26

FGs: 8/16 -8

FTs: 9/12 -3

Reb: 5 +3.75

Ast: 3 +6

Blk: 0 +0

Stl: 0 +0

TO: 7 -14

Total: 26-8-3+3.75+6-14 = 10.75



Even with 0 TOs he would rank below Haws and Collinsworth because they both had awesome games. Carlino still had a good game. I would say 10+ is a good game.



Look at Winder's stats. Didn't score nearly as many points as Carlino, but made 4/5 (2/3 3FGs) and had 5 assists to 0 TOs. I would say Winder had a huge impact on the game. We need Carlino's points, but he's always going to have a ton of missed FGs (he's not a selective shooter!). If I take missed FGs and FTs out the equation he moves up past Mika and is tied with Winder.

byufan4ever wrote:
Also, what was up with the crappy ESPN feed?

I didn't have any problem last night either. One night I did recently, but I don't remember what ESPN game I was watching. I have DirecTV. I rewound where it was frozen and played it. This time it didn't freeze up, so I don't think it was the transmission.

EM_Puma wrote:

Also, what was up with the crappy ESPN feed?

I didn't have any problem last night either. One night I did recently, but I don't remember what ESPN game I was watching. I have DirecTV. I rewound where it was frozen and played it. This time it didn't freeze up, so I don't think it was the transmission.

Yeah, I wasn't watching it live and I have DirecTV. I wonder if that had something to do with it.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
This is the problem with your formula. The second leading scorer for the cougs, who shot above .600 from the field and a decent clip from the line is your lowest rated player. We don't win that game without Matt Carlino. He single handedly made a lead, and then extended one that we didn't give back the rest of the night.



You can't say that about any of the other players that night, even Haws. If Carlino wasn't taken out of the game with poor officiating in the first half, he would have continued to burn up the Cardinals. He was unstoppable.

First of all it is The Stanford Cardinal

There is no s on the end - it is not plural - it is not a bird - it is what it is - it is a color. If you are not sure what color - hint: look at their uniforms.



Second. Carlino was very good. Very high highs. And too reckless at times. He was a key contributor. Nevertheless, he was out for much of the game and BYU did just fine.



Third. You owe the guy with the atrocious ball handling skills an apology. You may have noticed, the versatility he is oft credited with, kept him on the floor every second of the first half, filling in for various players - including Carlino - who were in foul trouble.



I have no idea what the formula used above was. Whatever it was, I agree that Carlino belongs right up there with Haws and Collinsworth at the top.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">