<<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...>> Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does using PATH instead of PPG become any more of a "judgment on players" than exists by the very nature of having all-star awards in the first-place? [After all, if a TD really wanted to, s/he could announce that all-stars would be awarded based on TU/I ratio rather than points, or limit them to teams finishing over .500, or whatever.] In any case, there is one important fact that people should note: the higher your PPG is, the less of a correction PATH tends to make. So, while a "category-killer" player might make a huge difference to a person who normally averages 10 PPG, it would make much less of a difference to someone who is pulling down 60 PPG. OTOH, *every* statistic has flaws, including PPG. Just because PPG's been around the longest, though, doesn't make it _de facto_ the best system available. I'm not saying that PATH is inherently better than PPG; just that it has a different set of advantages and drawbacks. I think PATH provides a useful basis for comparison that other measures (like PPG) don't, so I'll continue to use it. I'd like to see other people use it. And I have no problems with trying out modifications that people suggest. --STI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST