Quincy Pondexter vs. Jerome Randle: A Statistical Comparison

California’s Jerome Randle won Pac-10 Player of the Year today, and by all means earned the distinction.

Washington’s Quincy Pondexter was the runner-up and could just as easily have won the award.

Whether you believe the selection committee got it right with Randle, or should have instead gone with Pondexter, there is always the concrete evidence to support each side.

And that’s what we’re bringing you today.

The following is a statistical comparison between Pondexter and Randle. Pondexter’s figures will be on the left, Randle’s on the right. Each individual played in all 30 of his team’s regular season games this year. Categories where Randle had better figures are marked with an asterisk(*).

Points per game: 20.2 (Pondexter)/18.7 (Randle)

Rebounds per game: 7.8/2.1

*Assists per game: 1.8/4.5

Steals per game: 1.4/0.7

Blocked shots per game: 0.5/0.0

Field-goal percentage: .543/.447

*Three-point percentage: .375/.404

*Free-throw percentage: .833/.927

Those are the major categories, i.e. the basic categories you would find on your typical box score. As you can see, of the eight total statistical categories, Pondexter has better numbers in five of them.

Now for a few minor categories, again with Pondexter’s figures first and categories won by Randle marked with an asterisk (*):

*Minutes per game: 32.2/34.9

*Assist-to-turnover ratio: 0.93/1.26

*Games with 10+ points: 25/27

Games with 20+ points: 17/14

Games with 30+ points: 4/2

Points per game (non-conference): 22.3/19.25

Points per game (conference): 18.8/18.3

Now take a look at that last statistic and ingrain it in your mind. Because if we’re truly giving this award to the Pac-10 Player of the Year, in essence the player who performed best in conference play, then Randle isn’t it.

In fact, I’d wager that there are numerous players out there who scored more points per game in conference play than Randle. And while other statistics can come into play, Randle is taking home this award almost entirely on his ability to score points, because let’s face it, that’s what he does.

A few more numbers to throw at you:

Points per game (last 10 games): 20.9/17.9

Points per game (last five games): 19.4/12.8

Percentage of team’s total points (season): 25.1% (606/2,416) / 24.1% (560/2,323)

Team wins (season): 21/21

*Team wins (conference): 11/13

In conference play, Randle’s Bears were two games better than Pondexter’s Huskies. Overall, however, the teams were even.

Furthermore, Pondexter was a full percent more valuable to his team (in terms of points) than Randle was.

And if you look at the “down-the-stretch” numbers (the points per game in the past 10 and five games, respectively), Pondexter is clearly better.

So should Jerome Randle really have won this award? My initial thought was that he was very much deserving of the honor. But after carrying out my own statistical analysis I’m convinced.

Convinced that Quincy Pondexter is the real Pac-10 Player of the Year.

20 thoughts on “Quincy Pondexter vs. Jerome Randle: A Statistical Comparison”

  1. Couldn’t agree more. They got it wrong.

    I think everyone knew this was between Pondexter and Randle, so excluding Fields from this argument, here is a breakdown for Pondexter vs Randle of combined points for the two games against each Pac 10 opponent. Making a simple assumption that coaches votes based on how the given player played against their team we can assume (maybe falsely, but it is a metric none-the-less).

    UO – Pondexter 50, Randle 27
    OSU – Pondexter 38, Randle 20
    Stan – Pondexter 46, Randle 35
    UCLA – Pondexter 43, Randle 25

    USC – Randle 50, Pondexter 20
    ASU – Randle 32, Pondexter 23
    UA – Randle 39, Pondexter 37
    WSU – Randle 63, Pondexter 36.

    Interesting, a 4 – 4 split excluding cal and UW. Now lets look at what Cal/UW might have done considering they can’t vote for their own player. Assume for Cal it is a question between Pondexter and Fields and for UW it is between Randle and Fields.

    UW – Randle 38, Fields 34
    Cal – Fields 45, Pondexter 43

    There you have it. Assuming the coaches pick 1) based on how the top players played against their team, 2) Only pick between the two top candidates and 3) can’t pick their own player and so pick between the player not on their team from the top two and the number three: it is easy to see how the voting turned out.

    For all intents and purposes, Quincy should have won, but given this info, I can see why the coaches voted the way they did.

  2. this may be the dumbest article in history. yeah, the point guard doesn’t do anything besides score. it’s not like they run the offense or anything. and yeah, just blow off minor things like assists and assist to turnovers, because, hey, they don’t matter. it’s all about points.

    oh yeah, then hang everything on scoring .5 points more in conference, since that should determing (iyo), but then feel free to have it both ways by saying that cal and uw are “even” if you count the non-conference wins. And that little fact that cal played 4 top 10 teams in the non-conference to come out “even” but finished 1st to uw’s 3rd? Oh, well don’t worry about that because pointing out wouldn’t suit your bias.

    enjoy injustice. you two look good together.

  3. I didn’t know your mom’s name was “injustice.”

    Seattle Sportsnet 1, Angry Commenter 0.


  4. Your number for Randle’s ppg non-confernce looks wrong. I think he averaged 19.25 ppg non-conf (12 games or 40% of 30 games).

    I think it was a tie, and the tie breaker was Cal won the confernce vs Quincy had the 5 Player Of Week. POW are nice, but winning is better.

    Coach Mont. did a nice job of ‘framing’ the discussion a few weeks ago.

  5. You’re right. It is 19.25 PPG. That one miscalculation threw off my numbers for his conference output, as well. Everything should be fixed now, but that’s a huge mistake on my part. That’ll be coming out of my paycheck.

  6. Like IT is tweeting, its not best team award, its best player award. POW’s are best player, not wins. if it was wins, why didn’t the brockness monster win last year?

  7. Player of the Week is determined by a selection committee. Player of the Year is voted on by coaches. There is no rubric. Its simply who each team’s coach thought was most deserving. In this case, Randle was voted for more often. Pondexter is a great player but unfortunately, UW simply did not live up to expectations despite a weaker than expected conference. Had UW come in 1st, it’s probably a landslide victory for Pondexter. Unfortunately for the Dawgs, they can’t play outside of Seattle.

    Also, stats don’t tell the whole story. But if you want to play the stats game, then why not throw up Field’s stats as well?

  8. they wouldn’t put up fields’s stats because they don’t suit the bias. when comparing pondexter to fields, then it matters how much you win. but when you’re comparing him to randle, then winning doesn’t matter.

    but what would you expect from know-nothing homers?

  9. response #9 says it all.

    and not shocking there are no responses to this magnificent post.

    Check Mate Mutt fans.

  10. Alex, I’m wondering why you left out Landry Fields? I don’t see the rationale whereby QPon can be compared to Randle based strictly on numbers, but Fields is not a part of the comparison? Unlike Sirius, I’ll reserve judgment on your bias after you’ve explained your arbitrary exclusion of Fields.

  11. Well, if you donate to the site I’ll take the time to look up and quantify his numbers. But frankly, I don’t have the time or energy to give a rat’s ass about Pizza Face Fields.

  12. “Well, if you donate to the site I’ll take the time to look up and quantify his numbers. But frankly, I don’t have the time or energy to give a rat’s ass about Pizza Face Fields.”

    Ahh. I had you confused with a real sportswriter. My mistake. My only question is if you’re aren’t going to report with integrity, why bother with facts at all? Why not just say QPon should have got it “…because I say so, facts be damned.”

    Still, it’s amazing to me that you feel it’s acceptable to arbitrarily excluding Fields just because it suits your argument. Did it occur to you that you’re doing your readers a disservice by ignoring what are relevant facts? Again, why not just publish a comic book called, “The World According to Alex.” In it, you can have QPon dunking on Shaq and Venoy shutting down Michael Jordon…and oh yeah, the Huskies winning the NC, and the NCAA in both Men’s and Women’s.

    Screw the facts, eh?

  13. I have to laugh. Several people point out the same deficiency in your article and your response is antagonism. Hold on, I’m reaching for my credict card because I can’t wait to donate to a site with articles with gaping holes in their logic like these.

    Seriously, people pointing out the problem with your article are unwittingly doing you a favor. They are providing you with constructive criticism which should improve the next article you write. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water…

  14. Landry Fields is a dwarf among midgets. He plays on arguably the worst team in the Pac-10 and can easily be considered for the Best Player On A Team Of Rejects award. Anything else would be an insult to intelligent fans everywhere. I will strongly consider writing about Landry Fields right after I strongly consider Lyndon LaRouche as our next president or Osama bin Laden as Humanitarian of the Year. Right about the same time Jenny Craig considers John Goodman as their next spokesperson or Tiger Woods fathers another child with Elin. Just the fact that you’re trumpeting Dirty Laundry Fields is a disgrace to humanity. Next you’re probably gonna tell us you’re an Oklahoma City Thunder fan and that you enjoy the movie Gigli. This is reprehensible and despicable.

  15. The stupidity of your reply makes the point for me. If your response is the product of a UW education, I’m definitely sending my kids out of state.

    Fields will go higher than Pondexter in the NBA draft.

  16. “Fields will go higher than Pondexter in the NBA draft.”

    Ludicrous. Like any NBA team has the funds to keep a dermatologist on staff. Not in this economic climate.

  17. If Landry Fields gets Pac 10 player of the year then Charles Garcia should get national player of the year.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s