Average Score of Top Individual Players

[Ted]

What is the average score a top player? (Maybe top 10 in a tournament) I know that there are variations between the different question sets, but I am a Quizbowl Padawan and know nothing about them.

[Isaacbh]

Well, it depends on the player. I've seen highest individual scores at tournaments range from anywhere in the high 80s to 120s[!].

[Crazy Andy Watkins]

It also depends on the region, because that determines the field. Some Pittsburgh tournaments when I was in high school had a high scorer between 40-50 ppg (when Pittsburgh was weak); I broke 100ppg that one tournament senior year, and Charlie did the same. It's rather too variable to make generalizations.

[dtaylor4]

It also depends on the region, because that determines the field. Some Pittsburgh tournaments when I was in high school had a high scorer between 40-50 ppg (when Pittsburgh was weak); I broke 100ppg that one tournament senior year, and Charlie did the same. It's rather too variable to make generalizations.

Also, some strong teams have 2-4 players who can each put up a decent PPG, but crowd each other out.

Also, powers can also skew the average PPG upwards.

[theMoMA]

I've noticed that the top eight to ten players typically put up 40+ PPG at tournaments with around a dozen teams. PPG isn't always the best indicator of the being a good player though. As Donald mentioned, the better teams often have players who could score many more PPG if they played separately, but crowd each other out of more points. Oftentimes, the top PPG players are the ones with the most chances to score because of teammates.

[Wurzel-Flummery]

I've noticed that the top eight to ten players typically put up 40+ PPG at tournaments with around a dozen teams. PPG isn't always the best indicator of the being a good player though. As Donald mentioned, the better teams often have players who could score many more PPG if they played separately, but crowd each other out of more points. Oftentimes, the top PPG players are the ones with the most chances to score because of teammates.

Players who play alone (either figuratively or literally) can put up some pretty high numbers. Usually Matt Jackson, for example puts up in the neighborhood of 100, sometimes more depending on the field. But you can't judge a player on PPG unless they're playing alone.

[Ted]

That's a really good point that it is determined by teammates. I didn't really take that into account. I'm from New Jersey, so we have quite a few great teams and players around here. (State College, Charter, St. Joes, etc.)

[Inkana7]

PPG is a pretty meaningless stat if you want to compare the top players. For example, I'd put Dorman's or State College's players against almost anyone in the country, as they are extremely good specialists, but they rarely score more than 50ppg. Occasionally, you have one player who is good enough to score a lot of points despite playing on a great team(see: Henry Gorman last year).

However, you will usually find that the top scorers are playing by themselves, either figuratively or literally.

[Frater Taciturnus]

PPG is a pretty meaningless stat if you want to compare the top players. For example, I'd put Dorman's or State College's players against almost anyone in the country, as they are extremely good specialists, but they rarely score more than 50ppg. Occasionally, you have one player who is good enough to score a lot of points despite playing on a great team(see: Henry Gorman last year).

However, you will usually find that the top scorers are playing by themselves, either figuratively or literally.

This is where PATH becomes useful as it adjusts the TUH to be "TUH that your teammates didn't buzz on"

[Joe Romersa]

Whats PATH?

Also, as an example, in Southern California, there are teams with one person carrying them, like
Rancho Bernardo: http://naqt.com/stats/team-performance. ... m_id=19246
Torrey Pines: http://naqt.com/stats/team-performance. ... m_id=19258

and more balanced teams like
Santa Monica: http://naqt.com/stats/team-performance. ... m_id=19259
La Jolla: http://naqt.com/stats/team-performance. ... m_id=19247
Us (Arcadia): http://naqt.com/stats/team-performance. ... m_id=19252

[Frater Taciturnus]

Whats PATH?

basically its [(Points)/(Adjusted Tossups Heard*)] X 20.

*Adjusted TU Heard is found by subtracting the totals of tossups gotten and negs made by all the player's teammates from the player's tossups heard. This of course means that subs totally screw this equation up.

For example I will use VCU at EFT this year. All players start with 200 TUH, per the 10 game schedule.

Evan
Points: 86-14 (790)
"TU Consumed": 100
Adj TUH: 200-28-16-3= 153

PATH= 103.27

George
Points: 24-4 (220)
"TU Consumed": 28
Adj TUH: 200-100-16-3=81

PATH= 54.32

Sean
Points: 13-3 (115)
"TU Consumed": 16
Adj TUH: 200-100-28-3= 69

PATH= 33.33

Cody
Points: 3-0 (30)
"TU Consumed": 3
Adj TUH:200-100-28-16= 56

PATH=10.71


PATH essentially measures how good a player is on the team that player plays with, and levels out the disparities shadowing tends to create.

[Joe Romersa]

Doesn't this just give people with higher PPGs even higher PATHs and lower PPGs slightly higher PATHs?

[The Gambler, the Nun, and the Radio]

Doesn't this just give people with higher PPGs even higher PATHs and lower PPGs slightly higher PATHs?

Well, look at how much it increased:

Code: Select all

Player  PPG   PATH Change
Evan   79.0 103.27  30.7%
George 22.0  54.32 146.9%
Sean   11.5  33.33 189.8%
Cody    3.0  10.71 257.0%

[Joe Romersa]

OH I calculated it wrong when I did it.

Now it makes more sense...

[jdeliverer]

PATH still systematically favors specialists playing on good teams. If you pick up most tossups in a category and your team buzzes on everything else, you'll have ridiculously high PATH. It depends on what you're trying to measure, but it still doesn't indicate individual skill as a whole. A very good generalist on a team full of buzzer rocks won't have a chance against a specialist on a good team.

[pblessman]

A while back I thought about how to adjust a ppg to account for teammates' (and opponents') quality. I came up with this adjusted stat for the adjusted/effective points a player scores in a game:

Own Points+1/4 of Teammates Points+1/8 of Opponents' points=Adjusted points. The caps on the second and third parts of this equation would be the number of points the player scored, so s/he could never get an adjusted points total of more than three times the actual point total. Don't know if this makes much sense, but it somehow feels right...

I had the same idea for adjusting team ppg: Adjusted points=Own Points+1/2 opponents points, capped at twice your own score. That would mean that winning 600-0 is just as good as tying 400-400 or losing 300-600 (in terms of appg). That "looks" right to me... kind of...