Apologies in advance for the long post. I love numbers and how they can tell a story. I also recognize that they can tell any story you wish them to - so take this with a grain a salt. I did not have an agenda when I ran this data, merely a curiosity and was frankly surprised with the result.

-- The Setup

I pulled a lot of data and started to analyze it for offensive production. I hate totals as they are more a product of tempo as opposed to in indicator of true value. Whether it's GFGH or Rose's uptempo pace - if you use raw numbers, it will always look above average, so I wanted to use ratios to evaluate offensive performance. Simply put, who is most effective at gaining points with the ball in their hands.

I looked at statistics that show that a player "ended" a possession. A shot, a turnover, or a free throw (although I count each free throw attempt as half a possession - I know not 100% accurate given +1s or front ends of 1-1, etc, but it was easy and it mostly evens out.) Then I looked at free throws, regular baskets, and 3 pointers made to create a basic "Points per possession".

Note, I did not take into account rebounds, steals, assists, etc as while those are valuable, they measure other aspects of the game.

It's very simple math, but provides interesting results when analyzed historically over large data sets.

As a baseline - oddly enough - looking at dozens of teams and players, a number of roughly 1.0 is " very good". For a team it means you score 1 point per possession. For a player it means you contribute 1 point for every possession you end.

-- The Results

Looking at it from a team basis the numbers were surprisingly predictive.
For the 2015-16 season:
BYU = 0.97
Gonzaga = 0.99
St Marys = a fantastic 1.05.
Utah = 0.99
Pacific = 0.88 (How did we lose to them?)
Portland = 0.91
San Francisco = 0.91

Interpreting that - you would expect that BYU will score over 10% more per possession than Pacific, but that St. Marys is 5% more efficient with the ball over the course of the season than BYU is.

It's when you look at individual players that it gets interesting.
Keep in mind that a 1.0 is very good, a 1.1 is amazing. and a .9 is quite poor.

For BYU this tells an interesting story about offensive efficiency.
The winner?
Seljaas led the team and the WCC with an astounding 1.21 (For players > 100 possessions). This was due to 46% from 2, 49% from 3 and only 17 turnovers.

Of the starters:
Chase Fisher led with a very respectable 1.04 (Primarily bolstered by 84% FT shooting on 161 attempts.)
Kyle Davis had a pedestrian 0.96
Corbin Kaufusi was 0.99 on relatively few possessions. So while defense is his strength he was not an offensive liability.
Nick Emery - "He of the poor shot selection" - had an excellent 1.02.
Kyle Collinsworth - the WCC player of the year - had a team worst 0.82 on a team high 607 ended possessions. He was crazy low due to a team high 112 turnovers, no 3 pt shot to speak of, worst 2 pt shot percentage among starters, and second worst FT shooting of the starters - only KD was worse. In short, KC was the one player on the team you did NOT want shooting the ball. Yes he did a ton for the team, great rebounder, good leader, good assist man, but worst on the team for scoring effectiveness while consuming the greatest number of possessions.

How does this compare to other contemporary "great" players? Does shooting a lot just mean you are destined to have a lower efficiency?

Fredette never was below 1.02 in his career, hit 1.08 his junior year, and 1.05 his senior year. Astounding numbers for someone who consumed over 1,000 possessions his senior year.

Tyler Haws was extremely consistent at about 1.04 his final three years. The lack of a consistent three point shot hurt him, but low turnovers and excellent free throw shooting kept him in an elite range.

The only starter in the last decade with numbers similar to KC was Matt Carlino between 0.81 and 0.85 all three years he was here.

A Cougarboard favorite - Tavernari was between 0.92 and 0.98. About where you see most "Volume Shooters".

Most efficient starter at BYU over the last 10 years? A tie between Jackson Emery and Lee Cummard at 1.14. Cummards year at 1.14 he shot 62% from the field(!), 47% from 3, and 86% from the line. Jackson Emery was only able to match that due to an extremely low number of turnovers. (Cummard had 79 vs Emery's 42)

What does this all mean? - mostly nothing. It is only one number, but a number I found surprising. According to data, Kyle is the last player on the current roster, and the last starter on the roster in recent memory that you would want with the ball in his hands at the end of the game. It's not a "fair" analysis, but simply removing Collinsworth's offensive stats would move BYU from a decent 0.97, to an excellent 1.02, putting their effectiveness above Gonzaga, and Utah, and very near St Marys. For how many close games BYU was in, having our star player only convert each possesion to 0.8 points when the other team is converting at almost a 20% higher clip, just doesn't cut it and certainly led to some losses. That said, Kyle's tenacity on the glass, and overall leadership certainly led to some extra wins.

Note, I love Kyle and am glad he was a cougar, but I wish he had been utilized differently.

--------
Finally a few other numbers - just for interest:
Wiltjer - 1.09
Sabonis - 1.10
Everyone else on Gonzaga - <1.0
Jacob Poeltl - 1.17 = deserving of Pac-12 player of the year. Do you realize that means that every possession that Peoltl ended resulted in a massive 42% more points than those Collinsworth ended.
Eric Mika Freshman year - 0.98
Least efficient player in last 10 years with > 100 possessions: DeMarcus Harrison - 0.67
Next least efficient: Ben Murdock - 0.70
Third least efficient: Tie - Frank Bartley (2013), Matt Carlino (2011) & Kyle Collinsworth (2010) - 0.80

Final game vs Gonzaga:
Corbin Kaufusi had a best of game 1.50 (on only 4 possessions)
Nick Emery was next with an amazing 1.20
Wiltjer was 1.18 followed by Sabonis 1.02
The Seniors were disappointing:
Kyle Collinsworth had a game low 0.69
Fischer was slightly better at 0.76