BrewCity...

[IrwinFletcher]

I read your response to Phantom's post on the Top 15 players and have a request for you.

I am not up to speed on some of the statistical analysis that you mentioned and that KenPom utilizes in his rankings. I do not subscribe to his site, likely due to not understanding everything that his site is about.

Would you be able to give some insight into what some of these stats measure and what they mean to evaluate a player/team? I think I would find it interesting and better help me understand some things. Much like baseball, basketball is turning into something that can be measured by some advanced numbers.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Sure. His site has a lot of primer articles, but I'll try to sum up some of the key points. First, efficient field goal percentage, or eFG%, which is the absolute king of basketball metrics.

eFG% is calculated like this: (2-point field goals made) + 1.5x(3-point field goals made) / field goal attempts. So if a player goes 1/7 from inside the arc and 4/6 from three, his FG% would only be 38.7%, but his eFG% would be 53.8%. Generally, the benchmark for eFG% is 50%. Anything over that is usually going to be a positive, below is where you start questioning shot selection.

The math:
FG% 5/13 = 38.7%
eFG% (1 x 1) + (1.5 x 4) / 13 = 53.8%

eFG% gives a big boost to threes, and deservedly so. If you flip those numbers on the statline above (4/7 inside, 1/6 outside) his eFG% would be 42.3%. Essentially, it tells you how many points the player is scoring per shot attempt. The first example results in 15 points on 13 shots, while the latter is 11 points.

The math:
FG%: 5/13 = 38.7%
eFG%: (4 x 1) + (1.5 x 1) / 13 = 42.3%

On a game by game basis, there is no single statistic that is more indicative of winning and losing than the winner of the eFG% statistic. Yes, it can be offset with a turnovers, offensive rebounds (both of which give more attempts), or free throws, but in terms of predicting a winner, eFG% is king. The four factors (eFG%, turnovers, rebounding, free throws) were based on a paper written by Dean Oliver years ago, and he believed eFG% was 40% responsible for winning, but this Cracked Sidewalks article (http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2014/03/marquette-and-priorities-part-two.html) indicates eFG% is actually 63% responsible for predicting the outcome, making it more important than the other three factors combined.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Pomeroy's numbers look at things on a tempo free basis. Instead of looking at quantity, it looks at quality. Why? Because the fastest paced team (The Citadel, 84.5 possessions/game) plays more than 25 possessions additional on a given night than the slowest paced team (Virginia, 59.3 possessions/game). Between those two, The Citadel averages over 90 points per game while Virginia averages under 70. However, Virginia is much better in terms of scoring per possession, so even though they are outscored by their faster opponents by more than 20 points/night, Virginia actually has the far better offense.

As far as the other three factors, here's a quick breakdown:

Turnover Percentage: Typically, broadcasters and pundits like to talk about things like turnovers per game. At the end of the day, what does that really mean? Not a lot because teams play at such disparate paces. Let's consider Wisconsin and Marquette. Right now, UW averages 11.1 turnovers per game while Marquette averages 12.2. At a glance, you'd say Wisconsin is better at protecting the ball. However, Wisconsin games average 64.3 possessions per game and Marquette averages 75.5 possessions. Using those numbers, it turns out Wisconsin turns it over on 17.3% of their possessions while Marquette turns it over on 16.2% of their possessions. When you take the pace out of the game, Wisconsin is 1.1% more likely to turn the ball over than Marquette is on any given possession. Both teams are good at protecting the ball, but the basic numbers tell you Wisconsin is better when the reverse is actually true.

Offensive Rebounds: This looks at percentages. Instead of looking at how many rebounds per game a team gets, it looks at what percentage they get. Marquette isn't very good on the offensive glass, getting to 26.7% of their own misses (257th in the country). Defensively, they are much better, only allowing their opponents to get to 25.1% (41st in the country). For reference, the best teams in the country get to over 40% of their own offensive boards while the best defensive teams limit teams to around 20% or below (and the converse is about the same).

Free Throws: This one is a bit tricky, because it looks at the quantity of free throws a team gets compared to the number of field goals they attempt, not percentage. Why? Because individual and team free throw percentages are virtually meaningless stats. That's a difficult concept for old-school statniks, so it bears repeating. Free throw percentage is virtually meaningless. I'll get back to that in another post, but what this looks at is how often a team gets to the line, again in terms of percentage. For Marquette, the number of free throws we take is 31.6% of the number of field goals we take. That's not a good number, 251st in the country. However, we still have a wildly efficient offense (17th nationally) because this really isn't that important of a metric. In terms of numbers, if you take 30 shots from the field and get to the line 15 times, it would be a 50% ratio. The best teams in the country get to the line at around a 50% rate while the worst are 25% or below.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Why free throw percentage doesn't matter

Relatively speaking, free throw percentage is not important. Why? Let's break it down by the numbers.

Marquette averages 19.3 free throw attempts per game and is 5th in the nation at 81.3% from the line. So in an average game, Marquette gets 15.7 points on 19.3 free throws. That's pretty good, but consider if they were even better. Say we were we really good, at 91.3%. Generally, 10 percentage points is about a 125-150 point ranking difference. If Marquette shot 91.3% at the line, they would average 17.3 points on 19.3 free throws. Ten percentage points and it only makes a difference of 1.6 points per game. If we were 20% worse, we'd be at 11.8 ppg from the line. That's a difference of 5.5 points. Those are drastic swings in free throw percentage, but only make a difference of a handful of points per game.

The math:
19.3 x .813 = 15.7
19.3 x .913 = 17.6
19.3 x .613 = 11.8

Now consider what a difference eFG% makes. Marquette averages 61.1 field goal attempts per game and is 10th at 57.9 eFG%. So each field goal MU attempts is worth 1.158 points (percentage doubled because of the baseline 2 points per made basket). In an average game, Marquette gets 70.8 points on field goals. What if they could increase their eFG% by 2%? Bring it to 59.9 and you get FG attempts worth 1.198 points. At the same number of attempts per game, we would average 73.2 points on field goals. Marquette would get a 2.4 point benefit per game. 2% of eFG% is worth 150% what a 10% increase in FT% would be worth. To match the downward shift of 20%, it would take an eFG% drop of 4.45%.

The math:
61.1 x 1.158 = 70.8 (Marquette FGA/game x 2(eFG%)
61.1 x 1.198 = 73.2 (Marquette FGA/game x 2(eFG% + 2%)
61.1 x 1.069 = 65.3 (Marquette FGA/game x 2(eFG% - 4.45%)

Bottom line, eFG% is king, and free throw percentage is virtually meaningless. Huge swings in free throw percentage are worth a handful of points, while small swings in eFG% are worth significantly more. This is because of the sheer volume of field goals compared to free throws (double even for the best teams) and the increased value you will get taking two or three point shots as opposed to one one efforts.

To expand on that, efficiency is measured by points per possession. Generally, the average team scores 1.00 point per possession. It wavers marginally season to season, but by and large, that's the standard. When you go to the line, a team that makes 65% of their free throws is scoring 1.30 ppp when they get two attempts at the line. That would be better than the 2014 Wisconsin Badgers, which was the most efficient offense of the last 16 years. So essentially, getting to the line even for a bad free throw shooting team is going to be incredibly efficient. Bad at free throws still means good at offense when you get to the line.

[Nukem2]

Still good to make the most on your FTs however.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

A few other statistical meanings:

Adjusted Tempo: This is the number of possessions a team plays per game. Fast teams play in the 75+ range, slow teams play in the 65- range. Doesn't tell you whether the team has a good offense or defense, but does tell you their stylistic tendencies as far as if they want to score on the fast break or out of a half-court set, as well as the difference of teams that pressure the opposition into turnovers (like a WVU) or simply play suffocating man defense and try to force shot clock violations (like Wisconsin).

3P%/2P%/FT%: On Pomeroy's site, these are just the raw metrics. Primarily useful for calculating eFG% and offensive efficiency.

Point Distribution: This tells you where a team's points come from. Do they score most of their points on the three? From inside the arc? Again underscoring how meaningless free throw percentage is, only one team has ever gained over 30% of their points at the line. The 2014 North Carolina A&T Aggies were 332nd in offensive efficiency that year. Good teams focus on being efficient from the field, not the line.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Still good to make the most on your FTs however.

You'd rather make them than miss them, but at the end of the day, there is very little difference between being a terrible free throw shooting team and an excellent one. It's virtually inconsequential. I know that goes against logic, and in a tight game you'd rather have a good shooter at the line than a poor one, but in terms of how good your offense will be and your likelihood of winning, free throw percentage isn't all that important.

Far more important is how often you get to the line. Because it's an efficient manner of scoring (whether you are a good or bad free throw shooting team) getting to the line more often will help you win. But compared to eFG%, it's nothing.

[TheSultan]

eFG% does for basketball what slugging percentage does for baseball. Instead of treating every basket (hit) the same, it weights those baskets (hits) that are more valuable.

Example. Traci Carter has a FG% of .565. Markus is .484. So Carter is the better shooter right?

However if you use eFG%, Carter is .630 and Markus is .648. It's because Markus' ability to shoot from deep is more valuable.

[Nukem2]

In the end, ya gotta make your shots. Hard to teach eFG%. That's just a resultant stat. Practice, hard work and coaching.

[TheSultan]

In the end, ya gotta make your shots. Hard to teach eFG%. That's just a resultant stat. Practice, hard work and coaching.


But it is a valuable statistic that can help you judge player v. player and how a basketball team should be put together. You can especially see this in the NBA where 3 point shooting is emphasized more than it ever has.

[Nukem2]

But it is a valuable statistic that can help you judge player v. player and how a basketball team should be put together. You can especially see this in the NBA where 3 point shooting is emphasized more than it ever has.
That's my point. It's a resultant stat, useful for analysis. Does not help a guy be a better shooter.

[TheSultan]

That's my point. It's a resultant stat, useful for analysis. Does not help a guy be a better shooter.


No one said it did. And all statistics are "resultant." They mathematically describe what has already occurred.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

That's my point. It's a resultant stat, useful for analysis. Does not help a guy be a better shooter.

I'm not sure I agree with that. First, I think it impacts recruiting. Guys like Hauser, Howard, and Rowsey have helped our team eFG%. The staff has prioritized guys that can hit shots from long range. That has led to the highest eFG% to date of any Marquette team since Pomeroy has been recording stats.

Second, I think it can be used to coach players on shot selection. Henry last year was a fantastic example. Henry had some incredibly questionable shot selection for much of last year. I felt he really turned the corner after the Stetson game. He took better shots, wasn't chucking threes like he had been, played more in the flow of the offense.

There was a lot of criticism of those pointing out Henry's flaws at that time, but I felt they were warranted. He put up points and boards, but his usage was far too high for the efficiency. It sometimes felt like saying anything bad about Henry's game was taboo, despite his eFG% through January 27 being at 46.4% (98/209 2PFGs, 18/67 3PFGs).

Starting with the Butler game, he really improved his play. The rest of the way his eFG% was at 52.8% (66/122 2PFGs, 12/37 3PFGs). That's a monumental jump, and you can say it was just resultant of better shot selection, playing within the offense, and being more selective on when he would take a three, but to me it sure felt like using advanced metrics to figure out how to improve his game.

Henry's scoring and rebounding numbers didn't change markedly in that period. By basic stats, he was a very similar player. But as far as efficiency, he went through the roof and was a much better player starting January 30. The combination of recruiting players who have tendencies that excel in eFG% and working with players on the elements that make up eFG% is absolutely a coaching benefit.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Somehow, I got this far without mentioning maybe the two most blatant stats:

Offensive and Defensive Efficiency

This is what Pomeroy rates teams based on. His stats are adjusted for the level of competition (performing well against tougher opponents yields better ratings), but the basic jist of it all comes down to points per possession. As mentioned earlier, the average team will give up 1.00 point per possession on defense and score 1.00 point per possession on offense. Naturally it varies some from year to year, and this year offense is actually ahead of defense (the median this year is actually 1.039 on offense), but 1.00 has always been considered that middle ground.

When you look at Pomeroy's offense and defense numbers, it will be calculated per 100 possessions. Marquette, at this point, is averaging 115.9 points every 100 possessions on offense and giving up 100.6 points in the same span. In terms of points per possession, you simply divide by 100 to get 1.159 per possession on offense and 1.006 per possession on defense.

These numbers, along with eFG%, are the gold standard of analysis, and explain why a team like Virginia or Wisconsin could average 70 points per game (on 60 possessions) and still be an elite offense while another team that averages 75 points per game (on 80 possessions) might have a below average offense despite scoring more points.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Okay...lots of stuff in there, and that covers the bulk of the team data. Now I'll move on to individuals. First, a few things that are pretty constant:

Offensive Rating Players are judged on the points they score individually per possession. This is why I feel Sam is a lot closer to that top-15 than some others may think. He is ranked #22 in the nation with a 138.4 offensive rating. Quite simply, when Sam is looking to score, he is one of the best not just in the conference, but in the country. The two knocks on Sam are that he has only played 56.8% of minutes and his usage is low. The more a player uses the ball (whether creating for others or shooting themselves) the more their stats trend toward the mean. It's easy to have ridiculous numbers when you don't shoot a lot, but harder to maintain that when you are the team's go-to guy.

eFG% Still the gold standard, just calculated for the individual.

Shot percentages All the same.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

A lot of these are pretty self explanatory, but I figure I'll just blaze through them all. Here are individual stats that differ:

Usage This is the "%Poss" stat for Pomeroy. It refers to the number of possessions that end in a given players hands. So it will usually refer to made baskets or turnovers.

Percent Shots This is how many of the team's shots a player takes when he is on the floor. So if a guy has a 25% rating here, he is taking one out of every four shots his team attempts. In an ideal world, these guys should also be your most efficient players because you want those guys taking most of your shots, but as mentioned before, the more you use the ball, the more players tend towards the mean. This is why the advanced statniks have been hyper-critical of Reinhardt. His shot percentage has been insanely high even when his eFG% is insanely low. If you're shooting the most, you should be efficient at it.

OR%/DR% Offensive and defensive rebounding percent refer to what percent of the time that player gets to an offensive miss or a defensive miss. Elite players on offense will get to around 18-20% of offensive rebounds, or one out of every five misses. On defense, the elite will get to around 30-35%, or roughly one out of every three misses. Sticking in MU fans' craws right now might be that Steve Taylor of Toledo is getting to 33% of the opponent's misses, good for 3rd in the nation. Positionally, in the frontcourt I'd say anything in the 8-12% range is pretty good on offense and 18-22% is good on defense. For backcourt players, anything in the 5-8% range is good on offense and 12-16% is pretty good on defense.

Assist Rate This is the percentage of baskets you are credited with an assist on for all baskets made when you are on the court.

Turnover Rate Turnovers / Possessions. Lower is better.

Block Percentage The percentage of opponent's shots that you block.

Steal Percentage The number of opponent's possessions that end in you stealing the ball.

Fouls Conceded/40 & Fouls Drawn/40 Number of fouls a player commits or has committed on him when averaged over 40 minutes of play.

Free Throw Rate Simply, FTA/FGA. How often do you get to the line compared to the number of field goals you attempt.

[IrwinFletcher]

Thanks Brew, really appreciate it.

This model really points to the value of the 3 point shot, which I think Pitino was the first to really utilize going back to his Kentucky days and something I think that Wojo has embraced. I remember analysts saying that if a guy went 3/9 for the line, he was actually 4.5/9 from the field and thus 50% shooting percentage and that was considered very good.

The one i never really understood was player usage even though that is a pretty basic stat.

Last question, how does Pomeroy come up with his final rankings? Is it simply some average of the Offensive and Defensive efficiency?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Nice and easy, overall rankings are offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency.

[IrwinFletcher]

[QUOTE=Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77";133590]Okay...lots of stuff in there, and that covers the bulk of the team data. Now I'll move on to individuals. First, a few things that are pretty constant:

Offensive Rating Players are judged on the points they score individually per possession. This is why I feel Sam is a lot closer to that top-15 than some others may think. He is ranked #22 in the nation with a 138.4 offensive rating. Quite simply, when Sam is looking to score, he is one of the best not just in the conference, but in the country. The two knocks on Sam are that he has only played 56.8% of minutes and his usage is low. The more a player uses the ball (whether creating for others or shooting themselves) the more their stats trend toward the mean. It's easy to have ridiculous numbers when you don't shoot a lot, but harder to maintain that when you are the team's go-to guy.


How is Offensive Rating calculated, seeing it appears to incorporate Assists?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I have been looking for a great explanation, and resorted to emailing Pomeroy to ask. I know it factors in points per possession, eFG%, fouls drawn, assist percentage, rebound percentage, and penalizes heavily for turnovers, but it's also a proprietary calculation that I don't believe has been fully explained.

[Markedman]

Free throws sure hurt MSU down the stretch tonight. Game in OT now. Ward played great for Spartans but was 4-13 at free throw line including missing front end of 1 and 1 with 28 seconds left.

Great comeback by Sparty down by 13 at half

[TheSultan]

Do people not understand the FT point? It's not that free throws don't matter. It's that they matter less than other factors.

Look at last night's game for instance. If MSU shoots their normal FT% (45% last night versus about 60% for the season), they would have scored three more points.

They could have accomplished the same three points by making one additional three point shot, which would have lifted their eFG% by about 2%. (From about 49% to 51%.) If they would have reached their season average in eFG% (54%), they would have scored about 8 more points.

Put this another way. Say that Marquette as a team shot free throws as well as their top free throw shooters (Rowsey and Reinhardt at 96%). To accomplish this, they would have had to raised their FT% by 15 percentage points and would have scored about 33 more points. They could also have scored those same 33 points by raising their eFG% as a team from 57.8% to about 60.4%.

Small variations in eFG% have a much greater impact on points scored than FT%. You have to increase FT% by HUGE percentage to come close to accomplishing what seemingly minor increases in eFG% can accomplish.

[Nukem2]

Do people not understand the FT point? It's not that free throws don't matter. It's that they matter less than other factors.

Look at last night's game for instance. If MSU shoots their normal FT% (45% last night versus about 60% for the season), they would have scored three more points.

They could have accomplished the same three points by making one additional three point shot, which would have lifted their eFG% by about 2%. (From about 49% to 51%.) If they would have reached their season average in eFG% (54%), they would have scored about 8 more points.

Put this another way. Say that Marquette as a team shot free throws as well as their top free throw shooters (Rowsey and Reinhardt at 96%). To accomplish this, they would have had to raised their FT% by 15 percentage points and would have scored about 33 more points. They could also have scored those same 33 points by raising their eFG% as a team from 57.8% to about 60.4%.

Small variations in eFG% have a much greater impact on points scored than FT%. You have to increase FT% by HUGE percentage to come close to accomplishing what seemingly minor increases in eFG% can accomplish.All true, but missed FTs (especially front ends of on-and-ones) at the end of a game can truly have major significance in the outcome of a game. The real issue there is that you give the other guy possession of the ball on top of missing scoring opportunities. Hard to measure that. Have seen it time and again over the decades. Stats be damned in that case.

[TheSultan]

All true, but missed FTs (especially front ends of on-and-ones) at the end of a game can truly have major significance in the outcome of a game. The real issue there is that you give the other guy possession of the ball on top of missing scoring opportunities. Hard to measure that. Have seen it time and again over the decades. Stats be damned in that case.


You are cherry picking end of the game scenarios. Better shooting earlier in the game would have rendered those free throw situations less important.

And again, no one is saying that hitting free throws in the situation you are describing aren't important. Just not as important as other factors.

[Markedman]

I understand it Sultan. My beef is when some guys(JB) say"free throws don't matter".

The other 4 factors are obviously more important but they all are influenced by the opponent. Free throws are unguarded opportunities to gain points...especially in close games.

I guess my point is you are going to have games when you don't play well...or don't shoot well.....you turn it over a few times to many...yet you still find yourself in a tight game late.........in those cases being a good free throw team can make the difference in a win or a loss. Hell in the game last night being an average free throw shooting team would have made a difference.



Anyway.......I am by no means suggesting that Free throw % is as important as the other factors.....only that in crunch time missing free throws can really cost you...no matter how you got to crunch time.

[Nukem2]

You are cherry picking end of the game scenarios. Better shooting earlier in the game would have rendered those free throw situations less important.

And again, no one is saying that hitting free throws in the situation you are describing aren't important. Just not as important as other factors.
Cherry picking? Only in terms of overall stats maybe. Otherwise, FTs are damned important late in very close games. Hard to deny that.

[TheSultan]

I understand it Sultan. My beef is when some guys(JB) say"free throws don't matter".


Well yeah. That's just his schtick.

[TheSultan]

Cherry picking? Only in terms of overall stats maybe. Otherwise, FTs are damned important late in very close games. Hard to deny that.


Of course. Unless you realize that if you performed better earlier in the game, the FTs wouldn't have mattered. And you are cherry picking - front end FT situations are no more important at the end of the game than they are at the 8:00 mark of the first half.

[Nukem2]

Of course. Unless you realize that if you performed better earlier in the game, the FTs wouldn't have mattered. And you are cherry picking - front end FT situations are no more important at the end of the game than they are at the 8:00 mark of the first half.Practical matter is that the game is what it is late in the game. Overall stats go out the window at that point as they are rather meaningless at that point. Have a Happy New Year. :)

[Phantom Warrior]

Bottom line for me is that I'd rather MU shoots 76% as a team on free throws than 67%. That means that out of every 12 free throws attempted, we would make nine instead of eight. This year's team is shooting 81% so far on free throw attempts. We are averaging just under 20 free throw attempts per game (19.2). If we hit 80% of 20, we make 16. If we make only 70%, we make 14. Difference of two points.

On top of all that, I'd much rather have one of our 90%-plus free throw shooters on the line (Markus, Andrew, Katin) than one of our sub-70% free throw shooters (Luke and Duane).

Making free throws is crucial, not just at the end of the game, but at any juncture in the game.

[TheSultan]

Bottom line for me is that I'd rather MU shoots 76% as a team on free throws than 67%. That means that out of every 12 free throws attempted, we would make nine instead of eight. This year's team is shooting 81% so far on free throw attempts. We are averaging just under 20 free throw attempts per game (19.2). If we hit 80% of 20, we make 16. If we make only 70%, we make 14. Difference of two points.

On top of all that, I'd much rather have one of our 90%-plus free throw shooters on the line (Markus, Andrew, Katin) than one of our sub-70% free throw shooters (Luke and Duane).

Making free throws is crucial, not just at the end of the game, but at any juncture in the game.


No one is disputing this.

[TheSultan]

Practical matter is that the game is what it is late in the game. Overall stats go out the window at that point as they are rather meaningless at that point. Have a Happy New Year. :)


Really if what you are saying that it is better to make your free throws than to miss them...well...no kidding.

[Nukem2]

Really if what you are saying that it is better to make your free throws than to miss them...well...no kidding.

Really, thanks for the update. When time is short, making FTs and not having empty possessions is simply not measured by stats. A missed FT in the first minute may be as statistically valid as one with 0.5 seconds to go and the score is tied or down by 1. But, I think most can see that the latter is far more important with the game on the line. Call it cherry picking is you wish. Have a good day.

Every game flows differently. How things play out determines what was actually important in the outcome. Sure, one can say that better play earlier, etc. could be just as important. But, things happen and some plays (includingFTs) are simply more important and obviously are magnified. Stats really don't measure these subjectivities.

[TheSultan]

Really, thanks for the update. When time is short, making FTs and not having empty possessions is simply not measured by stats. A missed FT in the first minute may be as statistically valid as one with 0.5 seconds to go and the score is tied or down by 1. But, I think most can see that the latter is far more important with the game on the line. Call it cherry picking is you wish. Have a good day.

Every game flows differently. How things play out determines what was actually important in the outcome. Sure, one can say that better play earlier, etc. could be just as important. But, things happen and some plays (includingFTs) are simply more important and obviously are magnified. Stats really don't measure these subjectivities.


Right. If you are going to argue that during "crunch time" that pressure can be amplified and some players perform better, well sure. As you said the game isn't played on paper.

But the point is that if you hit your shots earlier, including your free throws, it may not come down to "crunch time." Hitting your FTs, your FGs, hell just about anything you do, is just as important early in the game as it is the end. That's not a statistical argument. That's just logic.

But the point remains, from a statistical point of view, FT% just isn't as important as other factors are in determining the outcome of a game.

[Gato78]

Markus Howard proved his studliness tonight. When he was on the line late, Mrs. Gato said "I'm Novaked". I said huh? She said "I just feel like I did when Novak was on the line. Just don't have to worry". Every game you can see why Traci left as Markus just gets a little better every time out.

Officiating was terrible tonight--terrible. Gaffney had to bail out Prager on that Rowsey three. If he hadn't, the place would have been insane since that was so obvious. Driscoll was pretty competent but Prager and Gaffney were awful.

Georgetown should have been going to the post the whole game. Not sure why they didn't try to take more advantage of size and get our bigs in foul trouble. JT III is now the Georgetown X factor. Great players, will the coaches show up? Pryor is a frickin' stud.

We had our most complete game of the season tonight. Gotta be pumped at the start of the BIG EAST season.

[warriorfan4life]

Markus Howard proved his studliness tonight. When he was on the line late, Mrs. Gato said "I'm Novaked". I said huh? She said "I just feel like I did when Novak was on the line. Just don't have to worry". Every game you can see why Traci left as Markus just gets a little better every time out.

Officiating was terrible tonight--terrible. Gaffney had to bail out Prager on that Rowsey three. If he hadn't, the place would have been insane since that was so obvious. Driscoll was pretty competent but Prager and Gaffney were awful.

Georgetown should have been going to the post the whole game. Not sure why they didn't try to take more advantage of size and get our bigs in foul trouble. JT III is now the Georgetown X factor. Great players, will the coaches show up? Pryor is a frickin' stud.

We had our most complete game of the season tonight. Gotta be pumped at the start of the BIG EAST season.

I was as big fan of Traci's as anyone here, but he was going to be a career back-up here with Howard and Cheatham at the guard spots. Wish he stayed the full season, but cannot blame for wanting to pursue a starting opportunity elsewhere.

[TheSultan]

Marshall coach Dan D'Antoni.

https://twitter.com/CraigMeyerPG/status/814343009244483585

Stresses why three point shooting is so important in college basketball.

[Goose85]

That is a great response by D'Antoni.

Crazy how the 3 point shot has completely changed basketball.

[Goose85]

That is a great response by D'Antoni.

Crazy how the 3 point shot has completely changed basketball.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Love the D'Antoni response. It's all about efficiency. Free throws are great, but whether you're a good free throw shooting team or a bad one, you're still scoring those efficiently. At the end of the day, it's a marginal difference. And all the stuff about late game, key situation, that's just an excuse for teams that screwed up situations earlier in the game. You wanna know how to win in the clutch? Be up 10 like we were last night.

The reason our offense is great this year isn't because we are a great free throw shooting team (we are) but because we are a great three-point shooting team. What kept the game in our favor last night was our ability to hit threes and, when Georgetown went zone, our ability to find the holes and hit the midrange shots (both JJ and Reinhardt had some nice ones).

Yes, it's better to make a free throw than miss, and you'd rather have a high percentage than a low one, but free throws simply aren't a very important part of our game. Sure, we're 2nd nationally in percentage, but we are #116 in makes per game because despite shooting them at a high success rate, we don't go there often enough for it to really make much of an impact on our overall offense. Far more important is that we are #24 in three-point makes per game.

There's a reason the four factors are considered the way they are. eFG% is king because it is all about making high-value shots. Offensive rebounding and turnovers are important because they give you chances to make high value shots, but less important than the actual eFG% because having the chance to make a shot isn't the same as making one. And free throw rate is at the bottom because everyone scores on those chances at a high rate, they are low-value shots, and more often than not (make or miss) give possession to your opponent to allow them a chance to make a high-value shot.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Love the D'Antoni response. It's all about efficiency. Free throws are great, but whether you're a good free throw shooting team or a bad one, you're still scoring those efficiently. At the end of the day, it's a marginal difference. And all the stuff about late game, key situation, that's just an excuse for teams that screwed up situations earlier in the game. You wanna know how to win in the clutch? Be up 10 like we were last night.

The reason our offense is great this year isn't because we are a great free throw shooting team (we are) but because we are a great three-point shooting team. What kept the game in our favor last night was our ability to hit threes and, when Georgetown went zone, our ability to find the holes and hit the midrange shots (both JJ and Reinhardt had some nice ones).

Yes, it's better to make a free throw than miss, and you'd rather have a high percentage than a low one, but free throws simply aren't a very important part of our game. Sure, we're 2nd nationally in percentage, but we are #116 in makes per game because despite shooting them at a high success rate, we don't go there often enough for it to really make much of an impact on our overall offense. Far more important is that we are #24 in three-point makes per game.

There's a reason the four factors are considered the way they are. eFG% is king because it is all about making high-value shots. Offensive rebounding and turnovers are important because they give you chances to make high value shots, but less important than the actual eFG% because having the chance to make a shot isn't the same as making one. And free throw rate is at the bottom because everyone scores on those chances at a high rate, they are low-value shots, and more often than not (make or miss) give possession to your opponent to allow them a chance to make a high-value shot.

[Nukem2]

FTs were a big deal last night. Screw those stats. Need to see the game in person.

[TheSultan]

FTs were a big deal last night. Screw those stats. Need to see the game in person.


Free throw *rate?* Yes. Shooting 17 FTs versus 11 for Georgetown was one of the keys to the game. (I don't have the actual FT rate to refer to, but it is roughly aligned to the FTAs each team had.)

Free throw *percentage* Nope. They could have swapped FT% and Marquette still would have won.

Stats described the game very well. You just are using the wrong ones. Need to evolve.

[Nukem2]

Free throw *rate?* Yes. Shooting 17 FTs versus 11 for Georgetown was one of the keys to the game. (I don't have the actual FT rate to refer to, but it is roughly aligned to the FTAs each team had.)

Free throw *percentage* Nope. They could have swapped FT% and Marquette still would have won.

Stats described the game very well. You just are using the wrong ones. Need to evolve. I was there. You were not. Game set. F$ck the damn stats. What ya see is what ya get.

[TheSultan]

I was there. You were not. Game set. F$ck the damn stats. What ya see is what ya get.


And what you see *is* what you get. You just aren't seeing the right things. Look harder.

[IrwinFletcher]

And here we go...

[farmerdoc]

I am actually, really, enjoying this debate. The one thing that the stats cannot account for in late game situations, is how makes or misses at the free throw line affect momentum. That is totally unmeasurable (I think, maybe there is a momentum equation somewhere?) statistic that really does have a real impact on the outcome.

[TheSultan]

I am actually, really, enjoying this debate. The one thing that the stats cannot account for in late game situations, is how makes or misses at the free throw line affect momentum. That is totally unmeasurable (I think, maybe there is a momentum equation somewhere?) statistic that really does have a real impact on the outcome.


Right. Players are human and as such don't perform perfectly. Two players who are roughly the same statistically could perform completely different under certain situations because of how they handle pressure.

I never mean to say that statistics are the be all and end all, but pretty smart people have broken down the most important factors in winning basketball games over the course of time. Dean Oliver identified four major factors summarized here.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm

Specifically he says this about free throws:

"The fourth factor is getting to the foul line. I phrase this intentionally as "getting to the foul line," not "making foul shots" or "free throw percentage" or "free throws." This is because the biggest aspect of "free throws" is actually attempting them, not making them. Teams that get to the line more are more effective than teams that make a higher percentage of their free throws.

Of course he acknowledges the obvious in the next line:

"Game-by-game exceptions can definitely exist - there are plenty of games that are lost by a team missing its foul shots - but over the long haul, just getting to the line frequently wins a lot more games than missing a few freebies will lose." (emphasis mine)


Here is another summary by Pomeroy:

http://kenpom.com/blog/four-factors/

Again, it's free throw *rate* that is important. Just getting to the line. Not free throw *percentage.* Of course it is is better to make them than to miss them. It just isn't as crucial in the long run to winning basketball games as merely getting there.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I was there. You were not. Game set. F$ck the damn stats. What ya see is what ya get.

I was also there and disagree completely that free throw percentage had a meaningful impact on the outcome.

[Nukem2]

Guess folks are getting way too precise with these stats. BB is a rather simple game and FTs are simply important in a close game. Enjoy the games... ;)

[Gato78]

I have to ignore metrics at a certain point. Baseball guys in particular are way too deep into metrics (basic: left handed pitchers fare better against left handed hitters--time immemorial). I want gamers, guys who can hit free throws or get to the rim when the game is on the line or even when a big basket is needed. I do not give a damn what their e%FT/assist/in January rates are because there is an immeasurable. The guy who shoots 40% may be the guy who has the stones to lead a rally when 10 points down--even if he misses some shots. That toughness cannot be measured. If metrics ruled we would never have beaten Kentucky in 2003--or 1994 for that matter.

[TheSultan]

I have to ignore metrics at a certain point. Baseball guys in particular are way too deep into metrics (basic: left handed pitchers fare better against left handed hitters--time immemorial). I want gamers, guys who can hit free throws or get to the rim when the game is on the line or even when a big basket is needed. I do not give a damn what their e%FT/assist/in January rates are because there is an immeasurable. The guy who shoots 40% may be the guy who has the stones to lead a rally when 10 points down--even if he misses some shots. That toughness cannot be measured. If metrics ruled we would never have beaten Kentucky in 2003--or 1994 for that matter.


Or the 2013 team. I think we are going to look back on that team (BE champs, Elite 8) as one of the more improbable runs in recent Marquette history. Even though they weren't a great outside shooting team, they could get to the rim, get to the line and rebound pretty well. And defend. Not a single NBA player on that team too.

[Nukem2]

[QUOTE=TheSultan;134169]Or the 2013 team. I think we are going to look back on that team (BE champs, Elite 8) as one of the more improbable runs in recent Marquette history. Even though they weren't a great outside shooting team, they could get to the rim, get to the line and rebound pretty well. And defend. ]Not a single NBA player on that team too.[/[/COLOR]QUOTE]

Not to be picky here, but Vander has played 5 games in the NBA. ;)

[ValiantSailor]

How many games did "Hack-a-Shaq" win? More than one, I'll bet.

VS

[TheSultan]

How many games did "Hack-a-Shaq" win? More than one, I'll bet.

VS


Nate Silver did a statistical analysis on the Hack a Jordan strategy and shows that it actually increases the expected net points scored by the Clippers.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/intentionally-fouling-deandre-jordan-is-futile/


And while this isn't in-depth statistically, it shows that Hack a Shaq was largely ineffective.

http://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/72359/who-wins-from-hack-a-shaq-strategy

From 2000 to 2006, Shaq’s teams won 22 out of 25 playoff series. Two of the three series he lost were to teams coached by Larry Brown, whose “play the right way” mantra prevented him from fouling Shaq without the ball every time down the floor.

“I’m not going to make a farce of the game,” Brown once said. “I’d rather have people beat us in basketball plays.”

...

Perhaps I could endorse the constant stoppage of play if fouling bad free throw shooters was the way to beat them. But with Shaq it was actually the opposite. At his peak, the more free throws he shot the better his winning percentage. From 2000 to 2006 his teams were 22-4 in playoff games when he attempted 15 free throws or more, including 6-1 when he attempted at least 20 free throws.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I have to ignore metrics at a certain point. Baseball guys in particular are way too deep into metrics (basic: left handed pitchers fare better against left handed hitters--time immemorial). I want gamers, guys who can hit free throws or get to the rim when the game is on the line or even when a big basket is needed. I do not give a damn what their e%FT/assist/in January rates are because there is an immeasurable. The guy who shoots 40% may be the guy who has the stones to lead a rally when 10 points down--even if he misses some shots. That toughness cannot be measured. If metrics ruled we would never have beaten Kentucky in 2003--or 1994 for that matter.

Metrics are not there to determine a one-off game. Yes, they can help determine outcomes, but the story they tell is the bigger picture. That said, the metrics in 2003 say we had the most efficient offense in the country. Marquette was top-10 in 3P% and top-25 in eFG%. Was it still an upset? Yeah. Would Kentucky have beaten us 7/10 times? Most likely. But metrics are about probability and give you a sketch of what could happen in a given game, not a definitive answer.

On the other hand, they tell the story of a season far more accurately. There are obviously outliers, but I'd guess that if we took Pomeroy's predictor right now and ran it out to the end of conference play, most teams would be within 2 wins of his current predictions. Because metrics are better at telling a big picture story than a snapshot.

Last year, I ran a similar test using the RPI Wizard application on RPIForecast.com. I tested around 25-30 teams and found that the Wizard predicted RPI accurately within 5 spots over 54% of the time and within 10 spots over 78% of the time. And that was strictly using aggregate win totals, not looking at how accurate it was when factoring home W/L outcomes.

You can throw it out, but this stuff works. No, an advanced metric won't determine if Howard will make the corner three with 1.2 seconds on the clock while trailing 78-76 at Cintas, but they'll do a good job of telling you how good your team actually is and how they match up against given foes.

[MUAlphaBangura]

Metrics are not there to determine a one-off game. Yes, they can help determine outcomes, but the story they tell is the bigger picture. That said, the metrics in 2003 say we had the most efficient offense in the country. Marquette was top-10 in 3P% and top-25 in eFG%. Was it still an upset? Yeah. Would Kentucky have beaten us 7/10 times? Most likely. But metrics are about probability and give you a sketch of what could happen in a given game, not a definitive answer.

On the other hand, they tell the story of a season far more accurately. There are obviously outliers, but I'd guess that if we took Pomeroy's predictor right now and ran it out to the end of conference play, most teams would be within 2 wins of his current predictions. Because metrics are better at telling a big picture story than a snapshot.

Last year, I ran a similar test using the RPI Wizard application on RPIForecast.com. I tested around 25-30 teams and found that the Wizard predicted RPI accurately within 5 spots over 54% of the time and within 10 spots over 78% of the time. And that was strictly using aggregate win totals, not looking at how accurate it was when factoring home W/L outcomes.

You can throw it out, but this stuff works. No, an advanced metric won't determine if Howard will make the corner three with 1.2 seconds on the clock while trailing 78-76 at Cintas, but they'll do a good job of telling you how good your team actually is and how they match up against given foes.

And then they play the games and all that stuff means absolutely nothing.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

[/B]

And then they play the games and all that stuff means absolutely nothing.

That's just idiotic and ignorant. Stats tell us Marquette is a good three point shooting team. Is that meaningless? Stats tell us they're a mediocre defensive team. Does that go out the window? Stats tell you what you are.

Teams can either learn from them, use them, and improve with them, or ignore them and stagnate. Fans can do the same. Realize that the eye test isn't perfect and only tells you so much, or accept that this stuff has value.

There's a reason teams like Golden State and Cleveland have separated themselves from the pack. Because they use and improve with advanced metrics. You can embrace them or be left behind. Saying they mean absolutely nothing sounds exactly as intelligent as saying the brewcityball rec team could beat the Bucks, because hey, all those stats mean absolutely nothing! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Gato78]

But....Brewcityall may have better metrics than the Bucks, but you know, because of the eye test, the Bucks will win. Brewcityball may have phenomenal 3pt shooting but the stat means nothing until they actually play the Bucks. When teams are fairly equal, one may have a better percentage of this or that that gives them the edge, but I will take the team with guts over the team with a better eFG% every day of the week. Metrics only go so far.

[TheSultan]

This is a topic about stats, and what stats are considered more important and why. Therefore, I don't understand why people come into the topic and say things like "metrics only go so far."

No kidding. No one claimed otherwise. No one claimed that the games were played on a computer and that the team with the better eFG% was going to win every game.

And I am curious Gato, what a team with "guts" looks like in your mind? What do they do that shows they have "guts?"

[Gato78]

If you want to see guts, watch the 2nd half of the 1977 NCAA Championship game. Watch Tony Miller dribble through the Kentucky press in 1994. Watch MU vs LSU in 1970 NIT game. Watch DWade put it on Kentucky in 2003. Watch MU at Bucky last year. If you watch any one of those games, you will have seen the definition of guts. Oh.....and Travis Diener.

[MUAlphaBangura]

That's just idiotic and ignorant. Stats tell us Marquette is a good three point shooting team. Is that meaningless? Stats tell us they're a mediocre defensive team. Does that go out the window? Stats tell you what you are.

Teams can either learn from them, use them, and improve with them, or ignore them and stagnate. Fans can do the same. Realize that the eye test isn't perfect and only tells you so much, or accept that this stuff has value.

There's a reason teams like Golden State and Cleveland have separated themselves from the pack. Because they use and improve with advanced metrics. You can embrace them or be left behind. Saying they mean absolutely nothing sounds exactly as intelligent as saying the brewcityball rec team could beat the Bucks, because hey, all those stats mean absolutely nothing! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Thanks. Appreciate that. Are you becoming that defensive about your position that anybody that disagrees with it is "idiotic and ignorant"? Stats tell you what has happened in the past so you can work on your game to try to improve. It guarantees nothing pertaining to future success. Too many other factors involved. How do you measure if players buy into the stats and adjust their games accordingly? How do you measure your teams or your opponents toughness? How do you measure your teams or your opponents willingness to do whatever it takes to win? How do you measure how kids handle pressure at any point in a game, beginning, middle or end? How do you measure if a kid has that intangible where he just knows how to win?

I think most of us find your statistical analysis has merit and is useful. We just don't think it is the end-all be-all to the extent you do. Hopefully you can live with that. Obviously, you are struggling with it.

[IWB]

Guts?
You forgot to add Bill Neary being escorted off the court in South America by machine gun toting fedarales in 75?

How about a 9 year old IWB taking a swing at Bill Neary post game later that year?

[IWB]

Guts?
You forgot to add Bill Neary being escorted off the court in South America by machine gun toting fedarales in 75?

How about a 9 year old IWB taking a swing at Bill Neary post game later that year?

[TheSultan]

If you want to see guts, watch the 2nd half of the 1977 NCAA Championship game. Watch Tony Miller dribble through the Kentucky press in 1994. Watch MU vs LSU in 1970 NIT game. Watch DWade put it on Kentucky in 2003. Watch MU at Bucky last year. If you watch any one of those games, you will have seen the definition of guts. Oh.....and Travis Diener.


I will point out now that in three of the four games you mentioned, Marquette had advantages in advanced stats. (I couldn't find the LSU boxscore, but my guess is that it would be four out of four.) Including destroying Kentucky twice by around 20% in eFG%. So did they win those games because of "guts?" Or did they win those games because they shot the ball better and got to the line more often?

My guess is the latter.

1977 Championship Game: Pretty equal shooting percentage. Marquette won FT rate 53% to 32%.
1994 Tony Miller Game: MU crushed UK in eFG% 56.4% v. 38.2% and in FT rate 68% v. 12%
2003 E8 Game v. Kentucky: Once again, MU crushed UK in eFG% 65.5% v. 42.2%

[Nukem2]

I will point out now that in three of the four games you mentioned, Marquette had advantages in advanced stats. (I couldn't find the LSU boxscore, but my guess is that it would be four out of four.) Including destroying Kentucky twice by around 20% in eFG%. So did they win those games because of "guts?" Or did they win those games because they shot the ball better and got to the line more often?

My guess is the latter.

1977 Championship Game: Pretty equal shooting percentage. Marquette won FT rate 53% to 32%.
1994 Tony Miller Game: MU crushed UK in eFG% 56.4% v. 38.2% and in FT rate 68% v. 12%
2003 E8 Game v. Kentucky: Once again, MU crushed UK in eFG% 65.5% v. 42.2%

Again, metric derivations of stats are simply measurements of outcomes. Butch Lee, Tony Miller and Dwyane Wade had no clue what their eFG% was or even what an eFG% was. They played well on the big stage. Call it "guts" or whatever. If some folks want to ponder and fantasize endlessly about derivative metrics of player stats, so be it. Happy New Year.

[TheSultan]

Again, metric derivations of stats are simply measurements of outcomes. Butch Lee, Tony Miller and Dwyane Wade had no clue what their eFG% was or even what an eFG% was. They played well on the big stage. Call it "guts" or whatever. If some folks want to ponder and fantasize endlessly about derivative metrics of player stats, so be it. Happy New Year.


Gato said "I will take the team with guts over the team with a better eFG% every day of the week. Metrics only go so far." But then he provided four examples where the metrics described perfectly why Marquette won.

I'm not pondering and fantasizing about it. I am describing objectively what happened. Can you say that Marquette objectively won those game because they subjectively played harder? With more "guts?" Sure. I never said otherwise.

However I have seen plenty of teams that play hard and lose because they can't shoot the ball or do other things well. (Wojo's first year is an example of that IMO.)

[IrwinFletcher]

I have to ignore metrics at a certain point. Baseball guys in particular are way too deep into metrics (basic: left handed pitchers fare better against left handed hitters--time immemorial). I want gamers, guys who can hit free throws or get to the rim when the game is on the line or even when a big basket is needed. I do not give a damn what their e%FT/assist/in January rates are because there is an immeasurable. The guy who shoots 40% may be the guy who has the stones to lead a rally when 10 points down--even if he misses some shots. That toughness cannot be measured. If metrics ruled we would never have beaten Kentucky in 2003--or 1994 for that matter.

I think you are missing the point when it comes to metrics. In your example above, a Manager will in fact look at the splits of a batter and pitcher. If one RHRP has a Batting Average Against vs. a LH of .300 but another LHRP has a BAA vs a LH of .180, that means it is much likelier that the LHRP will record an out. Does it mean 100% of the time the LHRP will get the out? Of course not. But the percentages are much greater and thus, the Manager will make that move.

Same thing applies to the metrics of basketball. EFG% is such a telling factor in evaluating good teams. Yes, Travis is tough and has guts etc, but would any of us know him if he didn't shoot the ball really well, handle the ball really well, dish out assists and a high rate and not turn the ball over? He is considered an all time great because of these numbers and because he helped his teams win a lot of games because of these numbers.

[Nukem2]

I think you are missing the point when it comes to metrics. In your example above, a Manager will in fact look at the splits of a batter and pitcher. If one RHRP has a Batting Average Against vs. a LH of .300 but another LHRP has a BAA vs a LH of .180, that means it is much likelier that the LHRP will record an out. Does it mean 100% of the time the LHRP will get the out? Of course not. But the percentages are much greater and thus, the Manager will make that move.

Same thing applies to the metrics of basketball. EFG% is such a telling factor in evaluating good teams. Yes, Travis is tough and has guts etc, but would any of us know him if he didn't shoot the ball really well, handle the ball really well, dish out assists and a high rate and not turn the ball over? He is considered an all time great because of these numbers and because he helped his teams win a lot of games because of these numbers.Think you are comparing apples and oranges here. The baseball metric gives a manager a decent insight as to what to do intra-game. Whereas, eFG% metric really does nothing for a head coach during game time as he does know who the good shooters are on the other team and what kind of shots they like.

[Gato78]

Gato said "I will take the team with guts over the team with a better eFG% every day of the week. Metrics only go so far." But then he provided four examples where the metrics described perfectly why Marquette won.

I'm not pondering and fantasizing about it. I am describing objectively what happened. Can you say that Marquette objectively won those game because they subjectively played harder? With more "guts?" Sure. I never said otherwise.

However I have seen plenty of teams that play hard and lose because they can't shoot the ball or do other things well. (Wojo's first year is an example of that IMO.)

Thanks for quoting me out of context. I think I had a qualifier in the preceding clause about the teams being equal. It is like looking at eFG% being predictive of MU's win over UNCC in '77 without acknowledging that Butch's length of the court pass was determinative of the outcome. Some things cannot be measured.

[TheSultan]

Thanks for quoting me out of context. I think I had a qualifier in the preceding clause about the teams being equal. It is like looking at eFG% being predictive of MU's win over UNCC in '77 without acknowledging that Butch's length of the court pass was determinative of the outcome. Some things cannot be measured.


Who said anything about eFG% being "predictive?"

And it doesn't matter because I think we are just saying the same thing. You are simply saying that playing a certain way leads to certain results, when I am simply describing the results.

You: Guts------------------------------------------>Victory
Me: Guts--------------stats----------------------->Victory

[MUfan12]

Execution will always be paramount, but the insights analytics provide are completely changing the way teams scout and prepare. It's really fascinating stuff. I'd recommend Andy Glockner's book to anyone wanting to learn more about it.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Thanks. Appreciate that. Are you becoming that defensive about your position that anybody that disagrees with it is "idiotic and ignorant"? Stats tell you what has happened in the past so you can work on your game to try to improve. It guarantees nothing pertaining to future success. Too many other factors involved. How do you measure if players buy into the stats and adjust their games accordingly? How do you measure your teams or your opponents toughness? How do you measure your teams or your opponents willingness to do whatever it takes to win? How do you measure how kids handle pressure at any point in a game, beginning, middle or end? How do you measure if a kid has that intangible where he just knows how to win?

I think most of us find your statistical analysis has merit and is useful. We just don't think it is the end-all be-all to the extent you do. Hopefully you can live with that. Obviously, you are struggling with it.

I'm sick and tired of how any attempt to understand something is immediately attacked. I absolutely hate how people are so intolerant of intelligence and the search for knowledge and understanding. If it makes me a bad person that the derision of knowledge absolutely disgusts me, then I'm guilty.

If you want to believe that basketball is just a bunch of guys randomly throwing the ball in the air and hoping it falls in the right direction, I guess that's your prerogative, but I firmly, completely believe that there is a quantifiable difference between Markus Howard's and Duane Wilson's ability to shoot the ball from three (for example) and anyone trying to say otherwise is positively a moron.

What people call intangibles are things we just haven't figured out how to measure yet.

[Nukem2]

I'm sick and tired of how any attempt to understand something is immediately attacked. I absolutely hate how people are so intolerant of intelligence and the search for knowledge and understanding. If it makes me a bad person that the derision of knowledge absolutely disgusts me, then I'm guilty.

If you want to believe that basketball is just a bunch of guys randomly throwing the ball in the air and hoping it falls in the right direction, I guess that's your prerogative, but I firmly, completely believe that there is a quantifiable difference between Markus Howard's and Duane Wilson's ability to shoot the ball from three (for example) and anyone trying to say otherwise is positively a moron.

What people call intangibles are things we just haven't figured out how to measure yet.As another poster suggested, the metrics do help in game preparation. That's fine. And, for some fans, the metrics can tell us more about what has transpired. That's fine too. But metrics are not going to do much intra-game. I seriously doubt that derivative metrics are ever going to measure intangibles. But, if you enjoy analyzing metrics, please continue to do so. Have a Happy New Year.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

As another poster suggested, the metrics do help in game preparation. That's fine. And, for some fans, the metrics can tell us more about what has transpired. That's fine too. But metrics are not going to do much intra-game. I seriously doubt that derivative metrics are ever going to measure intangibles. But, if you enjoy analyzing metrics, please continue to do so. Have a Happy New Year.

Maybe not in our lifetime, but mankind once created gods to explain weather, health, planting, and hundreds of other things that are now understandable.

In game, yes it matters. When a team is killing you on the pick and roll and you change defense to prevent it, that's stats. When a guy hits four threes from the corner and you need to close out faster, that's stats. When a guy always scores from "his spot"" the floor, that's stats. Adjusting to those things requires identifying the problem and improving your actions.

Some people call that "guts" or "intangibles" but it's actually having the intellectual savvy to identify a problem and the physical ability to correct it. And I'm not one that thinks the desire to understand those things is bad.

[MUAlphaBangura]

I'm sick and tired of how any attempt to understand something is immediately attacked. I absolutely hate how people are so intolerant of intelligence and the search for knowledge and understanding. If it makes me a bad person that the derision of knowledge absolutely disgusts me, then I'm guilty.

If you want to believe that basketball is just a bunch of guys randomly throwing the ball in the air and hoping it falls in the right direction, I guess that's your prerogative, but I firmly, completely believe that there is a quantifiable difference between Markus Howard's and Duane Wilson's ability to shoot the ball from three (for example) and anyone trying to say otherwise is positively a moron.

What people call intangibles are things we just haven't figured out how to measure yet.

Still with the name calling. Wow, the insecurity is shining through. And the best part of all, is you thinking I am such a simpleton that I believe basketball "is just a bunch of guys randomly throwing the ball in the air and hoping it falls in the right direction." So you must think that if we don't go by your analytics, we are just a bunch of hayseeds from nowheresville. You couldn't be more wrong. Happy New Year friend.

[Nukem2]

In game, yes it matters. When a team is killing you on the pick and roll and you change defense to prevent it, that's stats. When a guy hits four threes from the corner and you need to close out faster, that's stats. When a guy always scores from "his spot"" the floor, that's stats. Adjusting to those things requires identifying the problem and improving your actions.

Don't think one needs stats or metrics for these situations. They are rather obvious even to casual fans.

[Phantom Warrior]

I think I must be lost. I must have inadvertently wandered over to that other site, the one that starts with an "S"....not Dodds's Scout site - that other one - oh yeah, Scoop.

"Moron"? "Idiot"? "Ignorant"? WTF!!!!!

Enough already!

[TheSultan]

Still with the name calling. Wow, the insecurity is shining through. And the best part of all, is you thinking I am such a simpleton that I believe basketball "is just a bunch of guys randomly throwing the ball in the air and hoping it falls in the right direction." So you must think that if we don't go by your analytics, we are just a bunch of hayseeds from nowheresville. You couldn't be more wrong. Happy New Year friend.


It isn't "his analytics." It is a body of work that has been developed over the course of time, just like in baseball. And if you are a coach that doesn't "go by" them, you won't be a coach for long.

You don't have to look too closely to see that the game has changed. Post game is emphasized less. Mid-range game is disappearing. That's not a coincidence. It's because metrics are showing teams how to be more efficient - as D'Antoni mentioned above.

[Nukem2]

It isn't "his analytics." It is a body of work that has been developed over the course of time, just like in baseball. And if you are a coach that doesn't "go by" them, you won't be a coach for long.

You don't have to look too closely to see that the game has changed. Post game is emphasized less. Mid-range game is disappearing. That's not a coincidence. It's because metrics are showing teams how to be more efficient - as D'Antoni mentioned above.
Quite simply, teams are shooting a lot more 3s now (and, there are more guys that can shoot it effectively as time has evolved from the 80s). Don't need metrics or analytics to understand that.

[TheSultan]

Quite simply, teams are shooting a lot more 3s now (and, there are more guys that can shoot it effectively as time has evolved from the 80s). Don't need metrics or analytics to understand that.


??? Of course you do. Teams are shooting more threes because they have figured out that it is a more efficient shot. You can't claim it is more efficient without metrics. It is literally impossible to do so.

[MUAlphaBangura]

It isn't "his analytics." It is a body of work that has been developed over the course of time, just like in baseball. And if you are a coach that doesn't "go by" them, you won't be a coach for long.

You don't have to look too closely to see that the game has changed. Post game is emphasized less. Mid-range game is disappearing. That's not a coincidence. It's because metrics are showing teams how to be more efficient - as D'Antoni mentioned above.

Man, you guys really like to hear yourselves talk. NOBODY here disputes that metrics are not an important part of college basketball and just about every other sport today. NOBODY. Why can't you comprehend that there are many attributes that cannot be measured by metrics that also play an important role in evaluating talent? Why can you not accept that regardless of having metrics coming out your a$$, you'll never be able to predict how a kid will respond to a certain situation at a certain time of a certain game?
Any coach that doesn't use the eye test and look for immeasurable intangibles will also not be coaching for long.

Curious, what was the highest level of competitive sport that you played?

[Nukem2]

??? Of course you do. Teams are shooting more threes because they have figured out that it is a more efficient shot. You can't claim it is more efficient without metrics. It is literally impossible to do so.Rick Pitino figured that out at Providence with Ernie D. in 1987.

[TheSultan]

Why can't you comprehend that there are many attributes that cannot be measured by metrics that also play an important role in evaluating talent? Why can you not accept that regardless of having metrics coming out your a$$, you'll never be able to predict how a kid will respond to a certain situation at a certain time of a certain game?


Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I have said similar things REPEATEDLY in this topic. Please see below.


Right. If you are going to argue that during "crunch time" that pressure can be amplified and some players perform better, well sure. As you said the game isn't played on paper.


Right. Players are human and as such don't perform perfectly. Two players who are roughly the same statistically could perform completely different under certain situations because of how they handle pressure.


This is a topic about stats, and what stats are considered more important and why. Therefore, I don't understand why people come into the topic and say things like "metrics only go so far."

No kidding. No one claimed otherwise. No one claimed that the games were played on a computer and that the team with the better eFG% was going to win every game.


So I can clearly "comprehend that there are many attributes that cannot be measured by metrics that also play an important role in evaluating talent." I can also "accept that regardless of having metrics coming out your a$$, you'll never be able to predict how a kid will respond to a certain situation at a certain time of a certain game."

Do you understand that now? If not, how can I make it simpler for you? Do I need to provide pictures? Bigger letters? Shorter words? Tell me.




Curious, what was the highest level of competitive sport that you played?

Not sure why this is relevant, but I will amuse you. I played basketball through my sophomore year in high school. I played (and won!!) an intramural basketball championship at Marquette. Alas, I know longer have the shirt to wear with pride. I have played (and won!!!) multiple municipal basketball championships locally. But a knee injury a few years ago forced my retirement.

[MUAlphaBangura]

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I have said similar things REPEATEDLY in this topic. Please see below.





So I can clearly "comprehend that there are many attributes that cannot be measured by metrics that also play an important role in evaluating talent." I can also "accept that regardless of having metrics coming out your a$$, you'll never be able to predict how a kid will respond to a certain situation at a certain time of a certain game."

Do you understand that now? If not, how can I make it simpler for you? Do I need to provide pictures? Bigger letters? Shorter words? Tell me.




Not sure why this is relevant, but I will amuse you. I played basketball through my sophomore year in high school. I played (and won!!) an intramural basketball championship at Marquette. Alas, I know longer have the shirt to wear with pride. I have played (and won!!!) multiple municipal basketball championships locally. But a knee injury a few years ago forced my retirement.

Well, as far as the reading comprehension thing goes: pot, meet kettle. I clearly stated you "guys". Unless you are big enough to be mistaken for "guys", I would think that is self explanatory. And I will stand by my comments of you liking to hear yourself speak. As you pointed out, you made several posts that were very similar(of which none were directly related to a post of mine), yet you felt the need to respond to one of my posts with a similar response even when I was discussing it with Brew. Classic Sultan.

[TheSultan]

Well, as far as the reading comprehension thing goes: pot, meet kettle. I clearly stated you "guys". Unless you are big enough to be mistaken for "guys", I would think that is self explanatory. And I will stand by my comments of you liking to hear yourself speak. As you pointed out, you made several posts that were very similar(of which none were directly related to a post of mine), yet you felt the need to respond to one of my posts with a similar response even when I was discussing it with Brew. Classic Sultan.


LOL. It's a message board. That's what its for.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Well, as far as the reading comprehension thing goes: pot, meet kettle. I clearly stated you "guys". Unless you are big enough to be mistaken for "guys", I would think that is self explanatory. And I will stand by my comments of you liking to hear yourself speak. As you pointed out, you made several posts that were very similar(of which none were directly related to a post of mine), yet you felt the need to respond to one of my posts with a similar response even when I was discussing it with Brew. Classic Sultan.

This thread has pretty much completely come off the rails. I'm happy to discuss advanced metrics with those that feel they have merit. Anyone saying that it's all meaningless once the game starts is nothing but a drain on any such discussion.

Regarding this specific aspect of the conversation, I don't believe in intangibles. They do not exist. Just because we haven't figured out how to measure something doesn't mean it can't be measured. Personality tests, the Wonderlic, all of those are developed to try to figure out how to measure what we refer to as intangibles. The actions of intangibles are in reality just the result of electrical impulses in the brain firing to neurons in the body. Are certain players better in the big moments than others? Yes. Absolutely. But it's not because of "guts", it's because of physiological characteristics we haven't been able to fully analyze yet.

[CaribouJim]

Rick Pitino figured that out at Providence with Ernie D. in 1987.

Nuke, Ernie was teaming up with Bad News Barnes in early '70's leading to their FF in '73 and later playing for my beloved Buffalo Braves. You may be thinking of Billy Donovan and that dude whose name escapes me who was a transfer from Indiana I think. They did fire up a ton of threes.

[TheSultan]

Nuke, Ernie was teaming up with Bad News Barnes in early '70's leading to their FF in '73 and later playing for my beloved Buffalo Braves. You may be thinking of Billy Donovan and that dude whose name escapes me who was a transfer from Indiana I think. They did fire up a ton of threes.

Delray Brooks.

[CaribouJim]

Delray Brooks.

Correct - thanks.

[Nukem2]

Nuke, Ernie was teaming up with Bad News Barnes in early '70's leading to their FF in '73 and later playing for my beloved Buffalo Braves. You may be thinking of Billy Donovan and that dude whose name escapes me who was a transfer from Indiana I think. They did fire up a ton of threes.
Yep, Billy Donovan. A senior moment there. In any event, my point stands. Pitino figured out eFG% without metrics.

[TheSultan]

Yep, Billy Donovan. A senior moment there. In any event, my point stands. Pitino figured out eFG% without metrics.


No he didn't.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7178690/one-man-believed-adopting-3-pointer-college-basketball

"For us, it was basic mathematics," Pitino said. "We could shoot a lower percentage and still score more points. It was a godsend for our team."

METRICS!!!!

[Nukem2]

No he didn't.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7178690/one-man-believed-adopting-3-pointer-college-basketball

"For us, it was basic mathematics," Pitino said. "We could shoot a lower percentage and still score more points. It was a godsend for our team."

METRICS!!!!
Uhhhh, I think you got that totally backwards. Ye, you can shoot a lower % of threes and come out ahead. ;)

[Markedman]

Interesting stats from,the UW IU game tonight

IU made 62% of their 2 point shots .. out rebounded UW 32-25 and made 2 more free throws.

UW made 50% of their 2 point shots but also made 10-20 threes.....IU only 5-15...IU also turned it over 6 more times....

So IU scores 1.11 points per possession but still loses by 7 to UW which scores 1.23.

Good offense or bad D?

[Halo]

Interesting stats from,the UW IU game tonight

IU made 62% of their 2 point shots .. out rebounded UW 32-25 and made 2 more free throws.

UW made 50% of their 2 point shots but also made 10-20 threes.....IU only 5-15...IU also turned it over 6 more times....

So IU scores 1.11 points per possession but still loses by 7 to UW which scores 1.23.

Good offense or bad D?

Or typical poor game plan for Crean at IU vs UW? :mad:

[TheSultan]

IU has been having turnover problems all year. Didn't see the game, but in looking at the boxscore, that looked to be the problem again.

[Halo]

IU has been having turnover problems all year. Didn't see the game, but in looking at the boxscore, that looked to be the problem again.

Yes and there is the one thing you must do when playing UW: Value each possession. Crean never does against them and thinks he can just force them to play at his pace by shooting early and often and throwing the ball carelessly around. Hasn't happened yet in 7 years there. Really poor coaching. Groce ad McCafferry are in the same class there when playing UW. Coming down 1 on 2 and jacking up 17 footers, etc. You would think these guys would learn after losing that many times to Bo and Gard.

Buzz understood that when playing UW. Value the ball each time and ramp the defense up in the last 10 seconds of each possession because that is when UW was going to shoot.