I tend to believe that, while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with PATH and similar calculations, and tournament hosts should feel free to provide them if they wish, they shouldn't supersede or replace standard PPG for the purpose of determining individual All-Stars and such. There are too many odd situations that come up with the intersections of knowledge and buzzer speed, making measurements such as PATH inherently flawed... true, we all know that players with less support outscore players with more support, but giving players points for their teammates' answers is no way to correct that. People have mentioned the effect of a talented single-subject specialist (a "category killer") on the scores of the team's leading scorer; what about the category killer himself? we're dealing with a player who scores 25 points a game, and if he played alone would still score around 25 points a game... I think the PATH-adjusted individual stats from PB ( <a href=http://www.pennbowl.org/pennbowl10/indstat.html target=new>http://www.pennbowl.org/pennbowl10/indstat.html</a> ) demonstrate the problems of the system. Two players from Princeton were the #1 and #3 PATH scorers, despite the fact that they ranked fifth and twelfth in raw points, respectively. Now, I'm not saying anything against those players, and for all I know they could have been two of the three best players at the tournament... but I don't think it's the tournament director's job to mess THAT MUCH with the standings. If people can't leave the points-pre-game as is and let observers interpret as they will, I'd advise an averaging of the PATH (or similar adjusted stat) with the PPG; that would give an advantage to players on smaller teams, without ending up with such skewed situations as Princeton A's #4 scorer, who averaged 6.98 PP20TUs, and had a PATH of 18.66. True, PPG is a flawed stat, as countless solo or near-solo teams have demonstrated in quiz bowl, and Jerry Stackhouse in basketball, but it isn't the TD's job to pass that kind of judgment on players...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST