gb.c hoop ref glossary that's an outrage! |
outrage points and outrage per game Hello, friends. Maybe you remember the Stink Quotient -- the factor previously used by GoBoilers.com to rate referees in the Big Ten. The mathematicians here at GB.c have determined that the Stink Quotient was, in part, faulty as an accurate device in measuring the efficacy of officials. The main problem with the SQ was that it treated all losses equally; that is, a loss in a year when Purdue was 15-3 counted the same as one when Purdue was 7-11. There was also no effect on the SQ when a loss was to a great team on the road or to a poor team in Mackey. And lo, Outrage Points were born. Here's the 411: Each season, the GB.c supercomputer is allowed 100 "Outrage Points" to distribute between all Purdue conferences losses in that season. Points are assigned using factors of game location, quality of opponent, and direct game observation. As a result, the points need not be spread equally. If there are four losses in a season, three may get 15 points and the fourth may get 55. A Purdue victory is assigned zero outrage points. Each referee working a certain game "gets" the number of outrage points assigned for that game. Outrage points are bad. Very bad. Maybe you have a question, huh, Junior? Can't a ref be bad and Purdue still win? Yeah. You're right. But that which does not kill us will only make us stronger. Or, all's well that ends well. Or, just win, baby. Or, whatever else you want to put there. If one ref is more "responsible" for the loss, should all three refs get the points? Right on, Jack. Any ref can overrule any "innocent mistake" by another ref. We live together, we die together. There's no "I" in referee. For concrete examples of Outrage Point distribution, see the Single Season Breakdowns on the main Hoop Ref page. Outrage points, then, allow a more accurate comparison from year to year. An Outrage Per Game, whether it be in a season or over a career, is the ratio of a referee's compiled outrage points to games officiated. A perfect score is zero. stinc-o Some referees go one season with a high Outrage Per Game (OPG) and come back to earth in the next season. Are there those, however, with a continually high OPG? Good question. STINC-O (Statistical Trends In Natural Conflux with respect to Outrage) measures that exact notion. Each season, the difference between a referee's OPG and the average of all referees' OPG is calculated. It would be best to be negative (that is, have an OPG under the average OPG) or zero. Sometimes, of course, this difference will be positive. Not that big a deal. The STINC-O is the sum of these yearly differences for each referee over the course of his career. So, if he is positive some years and negative some years, his STINC-O should be near zero. If, over time, the STINC-O remains very positive, ... hmmm .... stinc-e The STINC-E (Statistical Trends in Natural Conflux with respect to Eventuality) is similar to the STINC-O, but uses a referee's Winning Percentage in place of his OPG. For those of you checking the figures at GB.c, remember to remove a referee's game(s) from Purdue's overall record before comparing his record to the overall. If a referee's winning percentage is .500 and Purdue's percentage without him is .750, he would have a STINC-E of -0.250 for that season. Negative STINC-Es are bad, but they happen. The key is to check the STINC-E build-up in a career. the watercooler How will you impress people with this data? A couple of reminders ... first, the C in STINC is pronounced as a hard C; almost like a K. If a referee has a high STINC-O quotient, he is said to be "STINC-O"; if he has a low STINC-E quotient, he is said to be "STINC-E". Keep in mind that a referee might be STINC-O without being STINC-E and vice versa. Of course, some are neither, and, sadly, some are both. Submitted with love from your friends at GoBoilers.com. Please use this information responsibly. |