My second instinct – which should’ve come before my first, now that I think of it – is that I’m underqualified to answer your question.

My third instinct is disgusting and I refuse to share it even with my psychiatrist.

I have a basketball boxscore problem for you. Let’s say that you wanted to find the teams that had the best power games and were the worst at defending inside.

Let’s say you only had boxscore info. Maybe you’re studying the Spanish League or something.

How might you do it? Points in the paint is contaminated by fastbreak run-outs…teams like the Celtics are presumably good power teams, but no one of their front line would jump out if you were surveying by position.

If you have any ideas I”d love to hear them.

Thanks…

The Crunk Quotient does come with a caveat, as well, and it’s this: players with lower FG%s are more likely to have higher CQs on account of they have more “room” ( I guess you’d call it) to make up.

For example, if Player A and Player B both shoot 2/4 3FG and 4/5 FT, but A shoots 4/10 FG overall and B shoots 5/10 overall, then A has a 40 FG% and 57.38 TS% and B has a 50 FG% and 65.57 TS%. That’s a 17.38 versus a 15.57 CQ even though both guys have been equally efficient and prolific in their secondary scoring.

So, really, what CQ is measuring is not necessarily how much secondary scoring a player does, but how much better said player is than he seems.

Make-a-the-sense-a?