It's a fastbreak fcp system that generates 24 t/o per game. Probably 3-4 easy buckets off of t/o as well. So 1 tip ins a game, 3 easy fast break layups and he's already got 8 easy points. 

His A free throw shooting combined with the ath/spd/lp and -2 makes him that good, he's got 350 FTA this year, that's insane. plus he's got some rebounding for putbacks.. 

I don't really have the standing to continue the debate any further so I'll concede that the premise behind this thread was off target.

Thank you very much for the intelligent responses; I think I learned a thing or two from you guys.

Something not talked about is his A IQ and the stamina. He only gets 23 minutes a game due to being set on fairly fresh and probably blowouts. If he is fairly fresh or fresh he is getting the most out of his talent. I think that helps with the stats.

kujayhawk, thanks for starting this thread - I think it's a very interesting question too.  As a member of Carleton's conference, I've pondered the mystery of Gonzalas as well, and came to similar conclusions (incredibly nice player, but not at all clear why he's SO successful at scoring with such a high distribution) based on a much more cursory review of his performance than you conducted.  

Interesting to see that his great performances hold up even against multiple above-average defenders.  

I really have nothing substantive to add by way of explanation for his success - just wanted to confirm that I wondered the same thing and enjoyed reading your analysis and seeing the various responses.

I deleted my previous remarks--was going to edit them--then poof.  Anywho, imho, Gonzales' offensive efficiency was actually second best on my team according to the formula that I use.  I use one that incorporates TOs and Gonzales led the team in the TO department.  If anyone looked at the boxscore of the game following the start date of this thread and the two final games, they would have seen an uptick in Kramer's distribution and a decrease in Gonzales' distribution--as I knew Kramer was the more efficient player and wanted to use him and his 90+ PE against the minus defenses I was anticipating--one of which was a zone.

I'm also willing to bet, there were quite a few players who were actually more efficient than Gonzales in the league if you look at TOs and the fact he didn't shoot 3s.  A SG shooting shooting 40% from 3 is the same as a player hitting 60% from 2.   For the most part since he really didn't shoot 3s, Gonzales' shooting % would be virtually no different than a gunner shooting 35% from 3 point land and that certainly wouldn't be newsworthy.

But his FT% did help make him more efficient than he would have been as a 70% FT shooter.  My 4th grade baseball coach put players into two categories--terrible and pretty good.  I think as a team we have quite a few players who were pretty good.   

If I recall correctly, over the course of the season Carleton averaged 2.4 chances to score per minute.  Compare that to about 2 chances per minute for an elite team running a traditional set at uptempo.  Simply stated, that's a difference of about 500 or more chances to score over the course of a season compared to a top 10 team running an uptempo traditional set.  To be on the same page, I'd count 3 missed FGA, 3 Off Rebs followed by a made FG as 4 chances to score.

So while his production efficiency was good, and I'm not complaining, not sure I'd call it machine-like or elite.  I'm sure his high FT% contributed to about 60 extra points over the course of a season compared to if he were an average 70% FT shooter. 

Bottom line is that as a team, his club had a ton more chances to score than most any other team.

Hey rails, congrats on the title! A couple quick thoughts ...

-Of course he led your team in TO's -- he was getting an enormous amount of distro. I'd actually argue that, considering the distro and scoring he had, the to's were lower than I'd expect and he did a pretty nice job not turning it over more.
-The statement that shooting 60% from 2pt is the same as shooting 40% from 3pt just isn't correct at all from an offensive efficiency standpoint, because the guy banging all the 2pters is getting to the line much more than the guy hitting the threes.
-The thing people are amazed at (and I would tend to agree) that you didn't address is that he kept up such a high level of efficiency despite the enormous distro, and that's also more unusual. Had he scored, say 11-12 ppg with similar efficiency, this thread wouldn't exist. I think his efficiency was quite elite considering the level of distro he had.

Thanks girt.  The formula I use does factor in FTAs as well.  But you are right, presumably an inside player goes to the line more.  It just all depends on how many total chances we are talking about since those FTAs don't count in the FGA number either that may be there for a SG.  2 FTAs is one scoring opportunity, the same as 1 FGA.  I don't penalize a SG for shooting a 3FGA so an inside player going 2/4 from the floor and 2/2 from the line (5 chances and scoring 6 points) would be about the same as a SG hitting 2 of 5 from 3 point land and 0 FTA (5 chances, 6 points).

As far as the efficiency goes, no doubt good. 

There is one current player on the leader board for ppg in DI allen.  Neil Goodmorning, Goodafternoon and Goodnight for Gonzaga.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=6925&pid=1770399

Mr. Goodnight shoots a ton of threes and I would say is more efficient than Gonzales.  He shoots .463 for his career from 3.  Anyway, 2059 points, 1451 FGA, 310 FTA and 212 TOs.  The formula I use puts that effeciency at 1.13. 

Another player in DIII who scored 2226 points Thad Madera had a rating of 1.19 shooting .465 from three for his career.  He had 1416 FGA, 450 FTA and 229 TOs.

I only looked at those two players and am not going to look at others.  Madura played recently and might have name recognition still.

Gonzales would be at 1.05 so far for his career and was 1.08 last season.

The Sandbagging Kramer was 1.16 this year.

Again a proprietary formula--but one that works for me.

It's hard to compare D1 with D3 though, but for D3, Gonzalez isn't even close to being the most efficient players on the offensive end. Some of the guys I have had in the past few seasons:

James Dupont

With so many D3 players able to shoot around or over 50% from the 3pt land (with a +2 setting, so most shots are 3s), I'm surprised that people are saying Gonzalez is super-efficient on the offensive end or puzzled by why he's so good. 

Just by taking a quick look at D3 Allen, the following players are probably better on the offensive end than Gonzalas. If you are all confused by why Gonzalas is scoring well, then don't look at the first link, because that will just confuse you guys even more.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=7679&pid=1772374

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=7792&pid=1814406

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=7717&pid=1814235

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=7834&pid=1772709

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=7625&pid=1814063

Like I said, I'm (mostly) stepping out of this conversation since the adults have entered the room and I lack the chops to keep up.

But for me at least, it's not that he's the most efficient player in D3.  He's not.  It's that he can be this efficient of a player given his high use.  Rails makes a good point that fastbreak/press makes his distribution appear higher than it really is, but I no matter how you look at it, Gonzales is being used a bunch.  Yet the percentages, rate he gets fouled, rate he fouls, rate he turns the ball over doesn't seem to reflect the fact that he's what our scouting reports would call a Teen Wolf.

And in that sense, the first link in the above thread that tianyi mentions is a good parallel.  Just like Gonzales, I see an outstanding SF but not in my mind an outstanding scorer.  In fact, he's a lesser version of Gonzales in my eyes. That they are both scoring machines really, really surprises me.  It would be one thing if this was a 80/80 ATH/SPD, 90 LP player that far surpassed his competition.  But as good as Gonzales is, he's not that good.

You can load up distro as high as 35% (this is as far as I have gone on some of my players, haven't tried more) without seeing any signs of dropoff in performance. Gonzalas at 94 stamina can handle play at fresh for about 25min in this fcp system. With a high distro, of course he's going to put up huge #s. 

Gonzalas and Jamie Wilson (even more so) demonstrate that LP in guards are deadly. I love ath/spd but have long stated that players with high per and lp are hard to stop. I have frequently seen 99 per players with 50ish ath/spd shoot .450+ from 3pt range while 90+ lp players with mediocre ath/spd shoot over 55%. 

I don't think his numbers (other than being high in quantity) look all that elite.  More along the lines of "pretty good" and not "terrible"  Compared to some of the other players I mentioned and perhaps tianyi listed, I'd say he is about 10% less efficient than those guys.  Perhaps that's because of a higher distribution, stronger sos or perhaps it was because his ratings weren't as good as those mentioned.

As far as Wilson goes (the first link that tianyi said would confuse us), Wilson's ratings are lower in virtually all categories except lp.  Wilson's game day rating is 538 (total minus WE and DUR) with an A- FT grade.  Gonzales has a GD rating of 585 with an A FT grade.  My formula makes Wilson more efficient at 1.11.  And his stamina is 17 points lower while playing 6 mpg more.  Wilson actually shot better from the line.  Can you believe that sh$t?  That's weak! ha. 

Wilson's team had a little more than 2 scoring opportunities per minute.  Wilson, according to my formula had 728 of his team's 2445 scoring opportunites (just under 30% distribution).  According to my formula, Gonzales had a distribution of 27% (903 of his team's 3316 opportunties).  One thing to note between their teams however, Wilson's team had an SOS of 134, while Gonzales' team had an SOS of 32.  But that's not to say there weren't a bunch of easy wins.  Much of that SOS came in the NT and a few select conference teams.   

Hawk, just for fun I looked up your leading scorer's data (Edgar has a 595 GD rating but a b- FT rating).  According to my formula he had 699 of your team's 2761 scoring opportunities for a distribution of about 25%.  His rating according to my formula would be at 1.12, more efficient that Gonzales with a slightly lower distribution.

The last thing I will add is that Gonzales played at fresh and still managed good, but not great efficiency.  More than anything, his points per minute/efficiency, I think was a function of team quantity versus machine-like efficiency.

I think one could argue that Gonzales' FB team having just under 2.4 scoring opportunities per minute as a team is high.  That is the FB.  And that's another topic.  But being as efficient as he was while having a distribution of 27% isn't really newsworthy if Wison was more efficient with virtually the same distribution.  I mentioned that the SOS' of the two teams were different which probably is the difference.

Just my two cents and I'm not complaining.  Hopefully we can find a couple of pretty good players to surround him with next season as well.

Probably need to reemphasize the fact that my premise behind this thread was proven wrong so I'm not trying to force my original, misconceived point.

Just thought it was worth noting that Gonzales has started his senior campaign lights out, going for 41 and 38 the past couple of nights.  With his IQ only improving, I would imagine he's going to make last season's numbers seem puny.

I'm not the best person to make this statement since I only have one team and although I've been playing this for quite a few seasons, I'm not the veteran that a lot of you are ... but that said, I've never seen a better scorer in my world since I've been playing HD.