[Cracked Sidewalks]1st Losing Season Since 1999 Possible Under Projection

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

1st Losing Season Since 1999 Possible Under Projection

Source: 1st Losing Season Since 1999 Possible Under Projection

[tower912]

Thanks for the projections.    I don't want you to be correct, but this is about what I thought it would be.   

[alexius23]

While prepared for a long season with a losing record...one still has hopes......

[MU82]

News Item:

Staggered By Projections, Marquette Cancels Season

Wojo: "We'll spend 2014-15 locking down Henry and Haanif and then get ready for 2015-16."

[mu_hilltopper]

This is just a bad dream.

[bamamarquettefan]

Well, I am sorry for two things. First, that my big table kept the piece from posting here. Second, the news above that I so discouraged Wojo that he cancelled the season. Hopefully he will read further down to see that we really can exceed these expectations and I do believe he should play out the season just in case :-)

Res   Date   Ven   Rnk   if    Top5 VA   Conf   Tot VA   Tourney   Seed
15-17   Non-Conf      88   Marquette   12.51   BE   14.46   CIT   4-seed
W   11/14/2014      247   Tennessee Martin   3.05   OVC   3.05   no bid   
L   11/18/2014   at   29   Ohio St.   21.47   B10   28.74   NCAA   8-seed
W   11/22/2014      197   Nebraska Omaha   4.6   Sum   4.6   no bid   
W   11/24/2014      182   NJIT   5.15   ind   5.15   no bid   
   Old Spice         in Orlando   3   1   3   1   
W?   11/27/2014   vs   114   Georgia Tech   9.51   ACC   9.61   no bid   
L   11/28/2014   vs   36   Michigan St.   19.2   B10   22.98   NCAA   9-seed
(W)   11/28/2014   vs   175   Rider   5.34   MAAC   5.34   no bid   
(L)   11/30/2014      1   Kansas   34.44   B12   60.6   NCAA   1-seed
(L?)   11/30/2014      76   Rhode Island   13.45   A10   14.43   CIT   2-seed
(L?)   11/30/2014   vs   67   Santa Clara   14.48   WCC   14.9   NIT   4-seed
L?   11/30/2014      62   Tennessee   15.28   SEC   18.46   NIT   3-seed
   Non-Conf            1   2   2   1   
L   12/6/2014      7   Wisconsin   31.15   B10   34.77   NCAA   2-seed
W?   12/16/2014      72   Arizona St.   13.85   P12   17.27   CIT   1-seed
W   12/19/2014      342   Alabama A&M   0.16   SWAC   0.16   no bid   
W   12/22/2014      345   North Dakota   0.02   BSky   0.02   no bid   
W   12/28/2014      290   Morgan St.   1.71   MEAC   1.71   no bid   
   BE Season 6-12            4   1   4   1   
L   1/1/2015   at   50   Butler   17.46   BE   18.68   NCAA   12-playin
L?   1/1/2015      50   Butler   17.46   BE   18.68   NCAA   12-playin
W?   1/1/2015   at   123   Creighton   8.84   BE   11.17   no bid   
W   1/1/2015      123   Creighton   8.84   BE   11.17   no bid   
W   1/1/2015   at   195   DePaul   4.6   BE   6.07   no bid   
W   1/1/2015      195   DePaul   4.6   BE   6.07   no bid   
L   1/1/2015   at   31   Georgetown   20.84   BE   28.81   NCAA   8-seed
L   1/1/2015      31   Georgetown   20.84   BE   28.81   NCAA   8-seed
L   1/1/2015   at   35   Providence   19.31   BE   22.68   NCAA   9-seed
L?   1/1/2015      35   Providence   19.31   BE   22.68   NCAA   9-seed
L?   1/1/2015   at   84   Seton Hall   12.78   BE   15.44   CIT   4-seed
W?   1/1/2015      84   Seton Hall   12.78   BE   15.44   CIT   4-seed
L   1/1/2015   at   45   St. John's   18.33   BE   19.14   NCAA   12-seed
L?   1/1/2015      45   St. John's   18.33   BE   19.14   NCAA   12-seed
L   1/1/2015   at   13   Villanova   26.56   BE   31.26   NCAA   4-seed
L   1/1/2015      13   Villanova   26.56   BE   31.26   NCAA   4-seed
L   1/1/2015   at   63   Xavier   15.23   BE   21.78   NIT   3-seed
W?   1/1/2015      63   Xavier   15.23   BE   21.78   NIT   3-seed
   BE Tourney            6   12   10   8   
               14   16   19   11   
W   3/11/2015   9   123   Creighton (9-seed)   8.84   BE   11.17   no bid   
L   3/12/2015   1   13   Villanova (1-seed)   26.56   BE   31.26   NCAA   4-seed
   CIT Tourney                        
L   3/17/2015      68   Oklahoma St.   14.41   B12   16.01   CIT   1-seed

[bamamarquettefan]

and here is the body of the story that didn't post, though admittedly my longer pieces with tables are easier to view at www.crackedsidewalks.com.

Marquette projects to go 15-17 overall, 6-12 in the Big East, and be eliminated in the first round of the CIT (that's the tournament below the NIT, but better than the CBI). This would give MU its first losing season since Mike Deane went 14-15 in 1999 after fMU has six straight 20-win seasons.

If that happens, MU fans should remember the losing season before that - when many fans booed a young MU team that went 11-18 in 1991 in another coach's first season (Kevin O'Neill). That team went onto go to the Sweet 16 once the freshman had become seniors.

This may come as a shock to many of our fans - as we were all thankfully spoiled as one of less than a half dozen teams to go to the Sweet 16 three years in a row. I ran into a number of Marquette fans in the lobby of my hotel the morning after MU was eliminated from the Big East tournament, and was stunned the main discussion was who MU would host in the first round of the NIT. It was very evident to me that MU was NOT good enough to make the 32-team NIT field, and this year could be even worse.

The fact is I expect MU to exceed the projected value with a realistic shot at the NIT and an outside shot at the NCAA.

Going purely be the Value Add of the top five players for MU and all of the opponents and adjusting for home court, MU has five narrow wins and five narrow losses in a 15-17 season - meaning that if Steve Taylor is fully recovered, John Dawson plays anywhere close to how he played in three great performances last year, and Derrick Wilson can just add marginal offense to his great defense, MU's Value Add would improve enough to turn those five close losses into wins to go 20-13 including an NIT bid.

I believe an NCAA bid is really a reach this year even with players stepping up, but I thought 2010 would be even tougher and Lazar Hayward and Jimmy Butler went to new heights to get what of our most stunning bids - so let's hope for more of the same. Hopefully Buzz's mind was just elsewhere last year, and Wojo is taking the kids to new heights on the court. Here is how the season plays out by pure Value Add:

START 3-1
If MU somehow wins in Ohio State or even stays within single digits, then Wojo has this team ready to far exceed the Value Add projections. More likely that is a bad loss, while Tennessee Martin, Nebraska Omaha and the country's only remaining independent (NJIT) are easy wins to make MU 3-1.

OLD SPICE IN ORLANDO 1-2
It looks very likely that Marquette goes 1-2 over the Thanksgiving weekend. MU has a slight edge over Georgia Tech in the opener, so a win there would be important. MU likely is 1-1 after two games, because a win over Georgia Tech would likely lead to getting beaten badly by Michigan State the next night, while a loss to Georgia Tech likely gives MU an easy win over Rider the next night to even it up.

The big game will likely be on Sunday. MU projects a little lower than potential opponents Rhode Island, Santa Clara and Tennessee, and if some combination of Taylor, Dawson and Derrick Wilson are playing above projections, then MU will have it's first realistic chance for a big win away from home to leave the tournament 2-1. If MU wins the first two games, then the likely opponent is Kansas, which projects No. 1 in Value Add and would be very tough ask. So a 2-1 trip from Orlando - however we get it - could be a huge breakthrough pointing to a much better than projected season.

Rest of non-conference 4-1

An upset of Wisconsin would be very unlikely December 6, so a 4-4 mark would be "par" coming out of the rivalry game. The Bradley Center would give MU a slight edge against Arizona State, so that is a huge must-win - and could let MU get to the end of non-conference play with an 8-4 mark, since MU's easiest three opponents (Alabama A&M, North Dakota and Morgan State) close out the calendar year.

Conference regular season 6-12, one win in tourney

If MU is a few points better than projections, then they can flip projected narrow losses at Seton Hall and at home against Butler, Providence and St. John's to go 10-8 in Big East play.

With a 6-12 mark, MU would project to be the 8-seed in the Big East tournament and potentially beat projected 9-seed Creighton before losing to top-seeded Villanova.

Potential bids

If MU comes out of the Big East tournament with a 15-16 record, they would still merit a bid from the CIT tournament as their last selection - under the hypothetical scenario that each team's Value Add is right, the NCAA takes the best players they can after their automatic bids, the NIT does the same, then the CIT picks the next 16 and the CBI takes the final 16. Obviously all of this is unrealistic, but for arguments sake,:

a. that would leave MU facing the overall No. 1 seed in the CIT tournament - Oklahoma State - and MU would be projected to lose that game and finish 15-17

b. ironically if MU finished just lower, they would hypothetically be the best team in the CBI and have a better chance to add at least a couple of wins and have a winning record.

c. if Taylor, Dawson and Derrick Wilson are joining the others in contributing to turn those five close losses into projected wins, then MU could enter the Big East tournament 10-8, 19-11 and be in solid shape for an NIT bid with an outside shot at the NCAA. The only problem with that scenario is that it likely gets MU out of the opening round Big East tournament games, meaning they might have to beat a 3-seed (Providence) to claim a crucial 20th win for the resume to wrap up an NIT bid or even make the case for the NCAA.

The game-by-game schedule below gives MU a "W" for a likely win, a "W?" for a narrow win under the Value Add projections for each player, a (W) for a possible game against Rider that MU would play if they do not get Michigan State in the 2nd round in Orlando.

The same is true of all variations of "L," as these project as losses but the five "L?" are the key narrow loss projections that would be most likely to flip to wins if MU is a little better than projections.

For each team, we indicate the Value Add of their top five players as well as their overall team, their conference, and their likely post season bid if they also match their projections and all their opponents do the same.

We do not want these projections to be correct - but we want to establish "par" early so we can determine if Marquette is exceeding expectations as the games play out.

[Daniel]

Projections and expectations are low for MU.  Rebuilding year.  But no one has seen them play yet.  Expectations could be accurate, but let's see what Wojo has done with the team and how they respond. Hoping for the best.

[NersEllenson]

and here is the body of the story that didn't post, though admittedly my longer pieces with tables are easier to view at www.crackedsidewalks.com.

Marquette projects to go 15-17 overall, 6-12 in the Big East, and be eliminated in the first round of the CIT (that's the tournament below the NIT, but better than the CBI). This would give MU its first losing season since Mike Deane went 14-15 in 1999 after fMU has six straight 20-win seasons.

If that happens, MU fans should remember the losing season before that - when many fans booed a young MU team that went 11-18 in 1991 in another coach's first season (Kevin O'Neill). That team went onto go to the Sweet 16 once the freshman had become seniors.

This may come as a shock to many of our fans - as we were all thankfully spoiled as one of less than a half dozen teams to go to the Sweet 16 three years in a row. I ran into a number of Marquette fans in the lobby of my hotel the morning after MU was eliminated from the Big East tournament, and was stunned the main discussion was who MU would host in the first round of the NIT. It was very evident to me that MU was NOT good enough to make the 32-team NIT field, and this year could be even worse.

The fact is I expect MU to exceed the projected value with a realistic shot at the NIT and an outside shot at the NCAA.

Going purely be the Value Add of the top five players for MU and all of the opponents and adjusting for home court, MU has five narrow wins and five narrow losses in a 15-17 season - meaning that if Steve Taylor is fully recovered, John Dawson plays anywhere close to how he played in three great performances last year, and Derrick Wilson can just add marginal offense to his great defense, MU's Value Add would improve enough to turn those five close losses into wins to go 20-13 including an NIT bid.

I believe an NCAA bid is really a reach this year even with players stepping up, but I thought 2010 would be even tougher and Lazar Hayward and Jimmy Butler went to new heights to get what of our most stunning bids - so let's hope for more of the same. Hopefully Buzz's mind was just elsewhere last year, and Wojo is taking the kids to new heights on the court. Here is how the season plays out by pure Value Add:

START 3-1
If MU somehow wins in Ohio State or even stays within single digits, then Wojo has this team ready to far exceed the Value Add projections. More likely that is a bad loss, while Tennessee Martin, Nebraska Omaha and the country's only remaining independent (NJIT) are easy wins to make MU 3-1.

OLD SPICE IN ORLANDO 1-2
It looks very likely that Marquette goes 1-2 over the Thanksgiving weekend. MU has a slight edge over Georgia Tech in the opener, so a win there would be important. MU likely is 1-1 after two games, because a win over Georgia Tech would likely lead to getting beaten badly by Michigan State the next night, while a loss to Georgia Tech likely gives MU an easy win over Rider the next night to even it up.

The big game will likely be on Sunday. MU projects a little lower than potential opponents Rhode Island, Santa Clara and Tennessee, and if some combination of Taylor, Dawson and Derrick Wilson are playing above projections, then MU will have it's first realistic chance for a big win away from home to leave the tournament 2-1. If MU wins the first two games, then the likely opponent is Kansas, which projects No. 1 in Value Add and would be very tough ask. So a 2-1 trip from Orlando - however we get it - could be a huge breakthrough pointing to a much better than projected season.

Rest of non-conference 4-1

An upset of Wisconsin would be very unlikely December 6, so a 4-4 mark would be "par" coming out of the rivalry game. The Bradley Center would give MU a slight edge against Arizona State, so that is a huge must-win - and could let MU get to the end of non-conference play with an 8-4 mark, since MU's easiest three opponents (Alabama A&M, North Dakota and Morgan State) close out the calendar year.

Conference regular season 6-12, one win in tourney

If MU is a few points better than projections, then they can flip projected narrow losses at Seton Hall and at home against Butler, Providence and St. John's to go 10-8 in Big East play.

With a 6-12 mark, MU would project to be the 8-seed in the Big East tournament and potentially beat projected 9-seed Creighton before losing to top-seeded Villanova.

Potential bids

If MU comes out of the Big East tournament with a 15-16 record, they would still merit a bid from the CIT tournament as their last selection - under the hypothetical scenario that each team's Value Add is right, the NCAA takes the best players they can after their automatic bids, the NIT does the same, then the CIT picks the next 16 and the CBI takes the final 16. Obviously all of this is unrealistic, but for arguments sake,:

a. that would leave MU facing the overall No. 1 seed in the CIT tournament - Oklahoma State - and MU would be projected to lose that game and finish 15-17

b. ironically if MU finished just lower, they would hypothetically be the best team in the CBI and have a better chance to add at least a couple of wins and have a winning record.

c. if Taylor, Dawson and Derrick Wilson are joining the others in contributing to turn those five close losses into projected wins, then MU could enter the Big East tournament 10-8, 19-11 and be in solid shape for an NIT bid with an outside shot at the NCAA. The only problem with that scenario is that it likely gets MU out of the opening round Big East tournament games, meaning they might have to beat a 3-seed (Providence) to claim a crucial 20th win for the resume to wrap up an NIT bid or even make the case for the NCAA.

The game-by-game schedule below gives MU a "W" for a likely win, a "W?" for a narrow win under the Value Add projections for each player, a (W) for a possible game against Rider that MU would play if they do not get Michigan State in the 2nd round in Orlando.

The same is true of all variations of "L," as these project as losses but the five "L?" are the key narrow loss projections that would be most likely to flip to wins if MU is a little better than projections.

For each team, we indicate the Value Add of their top five players as well as their overall team, their conference, and their likely post season bid if they also match their projections and all their opponents do the same.

We do not want these projections to be correct - but we want to establish "par" early so we can determine if Marquette is exceeding expectations as the games play out.

Curious to hear why you expect MU to exceed the model so much this year?  Also, to what do you attribute MU falling so far short of last year's model? 

[GGGG]

It's a nice Saturday morning.  The water is like glass.  A slight fog glistens in the rising sunlight on what is going to end up being a glorious sunny day.  Having motored out to his favorite spot and attaching his favorite lure, Ners makes a cast that he hopes will make this morning worthwhile...

[bamamarquettefan]

First in response to Daniel, I agree completely. I am particularly sensitive to fans getting down on the kids since I was on campus in the post National Title/Doc Rivers era when everyone was so down on the players who were working really hard to be a solid NIT team. I want us celebrating a great step forward if the guys can play around .500 in conference play - and not feel like that is just a "mediocre" year since we are coming off a dozen years of the unbelievable run of Wade, the Three Amigos, Lazar-Butler and Crowder.

In response to Ners, part of my hope for exceeding expectations, it could be part wishful thinking. However, when I studied the 12 years of player progression, it really is all over the place because we are dealing with 18 year olds. While i put up averages, really 1/3 of players regress, 1/3 improve about what is indicated in the projections, and 1/3 far exceed their projections, so it is just a rough average and I do believe Dawson (flashes of brilliance), Taylor (nagging injury all year) and Derrick Wilson (work ethic in the off season could make him just good enough offensively to make him a good player in light of defense) give a possible good scenario. The problem with that is that I don't know enough about likely breakthroughs on the other Big East teams to know if our upside is really bigger than there's or not.

As for last season, we were clearly going to take a step back even based on projections, but I believe there were two main reasons MU fell so much faster:

1. Duane Wilson injury and resulted point guard play brought everyone down. Gardner was the 55th best player in 2013 and Jamil just missed being in the top 5% (206th) and then in 2014 they did not have a point guard that could get them the ball in position to score AND they faced so many double teams due to defenses pretending Derrick wasn't on the court held their Value Adds way down. Value Add is a measure of the sum of the parts, but last year was more like the "weakest link" of the chain since we not only got a 0.00 from both point guards but in essence they rally held down everyone else.

2. The rules changes were crushing to MU. Our strength coming into the season was a big front line, and in 2014 almost every back-to-the-basket player became marginalized by the new rules. Until then, guards were hand-checked on the way to the basket, and their best option was dumping it to a big man closer to the basket. With the old rules I believe MU was easily an NCAA team this year and Otule and Gardner would have been very important.

Instead last year became completely a year of the guard. I actually had to adjust my guard adjustment for the first time in the 12-years of records in Value Add because guards were getting to the basket so easily off the dribble that they didn't need big men. Delon Wright of Utah was the perfect example of how guards own the game. He was an unknown JUCO who was pretty slight and could have been hand checked the year before, but with the hands off approach on the perimeter as well as near the hoop when contesting a driving guard, Wright hit an insane 62% of his 2-point field goals AS A GUARD! Why ever pass to an Otule or Gardner-type player when you can dribble from the perimeter and hit 62% of your shots? That's the shooting percentage of a great center, not a guard.

It wasn't that post players were really worse, it was that guards could score so much easier last year that big men were RELATIVELY weaker - college basketball had always averaged around 100.0 points per 100 trips, and suddenly it was 104.3 last year as guards dominated and our big men became less relevant. If we could have had these rules while we had the three Amigos the Dominic, Wesley and Jerel would have had an Elite 8 banner to hang.

[Jay Bee]

Quick alternative analysis:

MU's eFG% was crap last year. On offense it was monumentally poor vs. the past decade+. Easily the worst we've seen in more than a decade. Puke. The Warriors lose Davante and Chris, but the comps of others give them a great opportunity for improvement. Jamil's heavy 2FGA (2nd most on team) kept eFG% down. 3FGA/FGA can rise this season and the conversion rate has plenty of room for improvement.

I like MU's eFG% to improve in 2014-15.

MU's defensive eFG% wasn't good either, but mostly due to getting scorched from beyond the arc. BEast opp's shot 39.4% 3FG against MU (and it wasn't all Creighton's doing - many teams got in on the fun). Some love to talk about last year's starting guards from an offensive perspective, but consider their size and athletic abilities as well.

MU's def 2FG% will be challenged, but they can more than make up for it defending the perimeter (3FG% could decrease just because of unusually high numbers / chance and also because of MU's actual defense).

I like MU's defensive eFG% to improve in 2014-15.

eFG% matters most. Let's collect those wins.

NCAA tourney, baby.

[dgies9156]

Quick alternative analysis:

MU's eFG% was crap last year. On offense it was monumentally poor vs. the past decade+. Easily the worst we've seen in more than a decade. Puke. The Warriors lose Davante and Chris, but the comps of others give them a great opportunity for improvement. Jamil's heavy 2FGA (2nd most on team) kept eFG% down. 3FGA/FGA can rise this season and the conversion rate has plenty of room for improvement.

I like MU's eFG% to improve in 2014-15.

MU's defensive eFG% wasn't good either, but mostly due to getting scorched from beyond the arc. BEast opp's shot 39.4% 3FG against MU (and it wasn't all Creighton's doing - many teams got in on the fun). Some love to talk about last year's starting guards from an offensive perspective, but consider their size and athletic abilities as well.

MU's def 2FG% will be challenged, but they can more than make up for it defending the perimeter (3FG% could decrease just because of unusually high numbers / chance and also because of MU's actual defense).

I like MU's defensive eFG% to improve in 2014-15.

eFG% matters most. Let's collect those wins.

NCAA tourney, baby.

Somebody with some sense!

A combination of stubborn coaching, inability to teach and delusional visions about an NCAA invitation led to a severe lack of growth among last year's freshmen. With six to eight games left in the season, half this board still thought Marquette was playing for an NCAA invite. With the way the guys were playing, that was clearly out of reach.

Going into the season, I still think there is more talent on our team than most people are acknowledging. If they're coached well, eager to please and committed to excellence, we're going to be everyone else's nightmare. We won't win 'em all, but by mid-season, we'll be scary.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Thank you for all your work on this bama. Fantastic analysis from both you and Jay bee. I especially liked the bit about the rule changes. I knew it improved guard play but didn't think about how it would automatically bring down post play. Seems we picked the worst year to be forward heavy.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Somebody with some sense!

A combination of stubborn coaching, inability to teach and delusional visions about an NCAA invitation led to a severe lack of growth among last year's freshmen. With six to eight games left in the season, half this board still thought Marquette was playing for an NCAA invite. With the way the guys were playing, that was clearly out of reach.

Going into the season, I still think there is more talent on our team than most people are acknowledging. If they're coached well, eager to please and committed to excellence, we're going to be everyone else's nightmare. We won't win 'em all, but by mid-season, we'll be scary.

I think most coaches, especially ones that like to demand raises and test the coaching carousel every year, try to win the season, no matter how lost the season might be. Not saying it's right, just saying it is

[MU82]

Well, I am sorry for two things. First, that my big table kept the piece from posting here. Second, the news above that I so discouraged Wojo that he cancelled the season. Hopefully he will read further down to see that we really can exceed these expectations

Phew!

[bamamarquettefan]

Jay Bee is right on eFG% being the single most important factor, and as much as I loved both our centers last year, not having to watch them try to run from the rim to the three-point line on defense will be wonderful.

Steve Novak had the 7th highest Offensive efficiency rating in the history of Pomeroy with a 135.4 points per 100 possessions mainly due to his 64.3 percent eFG% his senior year - but i believe we have a player who can top him in both this year.

I believe Wojo should keep things simple for Deonte and let him go with his instincts.

When he touches the ball, he should continue to rotate between two actions:

1. Every other touch, immediately put up a three-pointer with half of them going in.

2. On the alternate trips, immediately drive to the hoop and tomahawk dunk on top of the biggest opposing player, drawing the foul during each dunk and often injuring the opposing player who tried to block the shot because he did not paid attention to the scouting report film on Deonte: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kuIm86iAv0

Obviously, Burton will only hit 50% of his free throws instead of the 97% Novak hit, but under this scenario, he will be averaging 2.5 points per possession in which he drives/dunks (dunk plus free throw half of the time) and averaging 1.5 points per possession with three pointer hoisted to shatter the all-time record with an average 2.0 points per possession or a rating of 200.0 per 100 trips on Pomeroy. Novak would then drop to 8th on the all-time list with his meager 135.4 points per 100 trips.

[bamamarquettefan]

Thank you for all your work on this bama. Fantastic analysis from both you and Jay bee. I especially liked the bit about the rule changes. I knew it improved guard play but didn't think about how it would automatically bring down post play. Seems we picked the worst year to be forward heavy.

Thanks, and unfortunately agree completely on your last sentence.

[NersEllenson]

First in response to Daniel, I agree completely. I am particularly sensitive to fans getting down on the kids since I was on campus in the post National Title/Doc Rivers era when everyone was so down on the players who were working really hard to be a solid NIT team. I want us celebrating a great step forward if the guys can play around .500 in conference play - and not feel like that is just a "mediocre" year since we are coming off a dozen years of the unbelievable run of Wade, the Three Amigos, Lazar-Butler and Crowder.

In response to Ners, part of my hope for exceeding expectations, it could be part wishful thinking. However, when I studied the 12 years of player progression, it really is all over the place because we are dealing with 18 year olds. While i put up averages, really 1/3 of players regress, 1/3 improve about what is indicated in the projections, and 1/3 far exceed their projections, so it is just a rough average and I do believe Dawson (flashes of brilliance), Taylor (nagging injury all year) and Derrick Wilson (work ethic in the off season could make him just good enough offensively to make him a good player in light of defense) give a possible good scenario. The problem with that is that I don't know enough about likely breakthroughs on the other Big East teams to know if our upside is really bigger than there's or not.

As for last season, we were clearly going to take a step back even based on projections, but I believe there were two main reasons MU fell so much faster:

1. Duane Wilson injury and resulted point guard play brought everyone down. Gardner was the 55th best player in 2013 and Jamil just missed being in the top 5% (206th) and then in 2014 they did not have a point guard that could get them the ball in position to score AND they faced so many double teams due to defenses pretending Derrick wasn't on the court held their Value Adds way down. Value Add is a measure of the sum of the parts, but last year was more like the "weakest link" of the chain since we not only got a 0.00 from both point guards but in essence they rally held down everyone else.

2. The rules changes were crushing to MU. Our strength coming into the season was a big front line, and in 2014 almost every back-to-the-basket player became marginalized by the new rules. Until then, guards were hand-checked on the way to the basket, and their best option was dumping it to a big man closer to the basket. With the old rules I believe MU was easily an NCAA team this year and Otule and Gardner would have been very important.

Instead last year became completely a year of the guard. I actually had to adjust my guard adjustment for the first time in the 12-years of records in Value Add because guards were getting to the basket so easily off the dribble that they didn't need big men. Delon Wright of Utah was the perfect example of how guards own the game. He was an unknown JUCO who was pretty slight and could have been hand checked the year before, but with the hands off approach on the perimeter as well as near the hoop when contesting a driving guard, Wright hit an insane 62% of his 2-point field goals AS A GUARD! Why ever pass to an Otule or Gardner-type player when you can dribble from the perimeter and hit 62% of your shots? That's the shooting percentage of a great center, not a guard.

It wasn't that post players were really worse, it was that guards could score so much easier last year that big men were RELATIVELY weaker - college basketball had always averaged around 100.0 points per 100 trips, and suddenly it was 104.3 last year as guards dominated and our big men became less relevant. If we could have had these rules while we had the three Amigos the Dominic, Wesley and Jerel would have had an Elite 8 banner to hang.

Agree with your take.  Got tired of reading here all year how much last season was the fault of Jamil and Davante not being better leaders.  What is ironic, is in the YEAR OF THE GUARD - where to your point - the rules were bent in favor of the guard - our two max minute players (and guards) hand selected by Buzz due to "playing to the scouting report" were unable to generate any value add - all the while making it even more difficult for Davante and Jamil to operate.

But, yea, as about 5 numbskulls here argued all last season it could have gotten worse...a lot worse with playing Dawson and JJJ more.  LOL.

As for Duane Wilson injury hurting the team - think that is a cop out - he was struggling in practice as it was prior to the injury.  Additionally, if Burton, a guy with a 36% chance of making the NBA per value add, and an All Big East freshman team performer could only get 12 minutes per game - I highly doubt Buzz would have given Duane Wilson 25+ minutes per game.  Furthermore, after Dawson practically won us the Georgetown game - it didn't result in anymore playing time.  A whopping 8 minutes the next game.  Nice Buzz.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Honestly, below .500 or not, I am looking forward to this season after the almost unwatchable debacle last year. I just think this team is going to be a lot of fun to watch.

[MU82]

Got tired of reading here all year how much last season was the fault of Jamil and Davante not being better leaders. 

I also am not the biggest fan of the leadership excuse.

However, Jamil did not play well that season. It's easy to blame some of it on the players surrounding him, but he was supposed to be our stud. He regressed, he played timidly, he played inefficiently.

Davante had the same teammates around him, and as a low-post center he was more dependent upon others getting him the ball. And he had to play with an ineffective Jamil, while Jamil got to play with an effective Davante. Yet Davante put up more than acceptable numbers.

Jamil's play last season was one of the main things - not THE main thing, but one of them - that condemned us to failure. To suggest otherwise would be revisionist history.

[Texas Western]

and here is the body of the story that didn't post, though admittedly my longer pieces with tables are easier to view at www.crackedsidewalks.com.

Marquette projects to go 15-17 overall, 6-12 in the Big East, and be eliminated in the first round of the CIT (that's the tournament below the NIT, but better than the CBI). This would give MU its first losing season since Mike Deane went 14-15 in 1999 after fMU has six straight 20-win seasons.

If that happens, MU fans should remember the losing season before that - when many fans booed a young MU team that went 11-18 in 1991 in another coach's first season (Kevin O'Neill). That team went onto go to the Sweet 16 once the freshman had become seniors.

This may come as a shock to many of our fans - as we were all thankfully spoiled as one of less than a half dozen teams to go to the Sweet 16 three years in a row. I ran into a number of Marquette fans in the lobby of my hotel the morning after MU was eliminated from the Big East tournament, and was stunned the main discussion was who MU would host in the first round of the NIT. It was very evident to me that MU was NOT good enough to make the 32-team NIT field, and this year could be even worse.

The fact is I expect MU to exceed the projected value with a realistic shot at the NIT and an outside shot at the NCAA.

Going purely be the Value Add of the top five players for MU and all of the opponents and adjusting for home court, MU has five narrow wins and five narrow losses in a 15-17 season - meaning that if Steve Taylor is fully recovered, John Dawson plays anywhere close to how he played in three great performances last year, and Derrick Wilson can just add marginal offense to his great defense, MU's Value Add would improve enough to turn those five close losses into wins to go 20-13 including an NIT bid.

I believe an NCAA bid is really a reach this year even with players stepping up, but I thought 2010 would be even tougher and Lazar Hayward and Jimmy Butler went to new heights to get what of our most stunning bids - so let's hope for more of the same. Hopefully Buzz's mind was just elsewhere last year, and Wojo is taking the kids to new heights on the court. Here is how the season plays out by pure Value Add:

START 3-1
If MU somehow wins in Ohio State or even stays within single digits, then Wojo has this team ready to far exceed the Value Add projections. More likely that is a bad loss, while Tennessee Martin, Nebraska Omaha and the country's only remaining independent (NJIT) are easy wins to make MU 3-1.

OLD SPICE IN ORLANDO 1-2
It looks very likely that Marquette goes 1-2 over the Thanksgiving weekend. MU has a slight edge over Georgia Tech in the opener, so a win there would be important. MU likely is 1-1 after two games, because a win over Georgia Tech would likely lead to getting beaten badly by Michigan State the next night, while a loss to Georgia Tech likely gives MU an easy win over Rider the next night to even it up.

The big game will likely be on Sunday. MU projects a little lower than potential opponents Rhode Island, Santa Clara and Tennessee, and if some combination of Taylor, Dawson and Derrick Wilson are playing above projections, then MU will have it's first realistic chance for a big win away from home to leave the tournament 2-1. If MU wins the first two games, then the likely opponent is Kansas, which projects No. 1 in Value Add and would be very tough ask. So a 2-1 trip from Orlando - however we get it - could be a huge breakthrough pointing to a much better than projected season.

Rest of non-conference 4-1

An upset of Wisconsin would be very unlikely December 6, so a 4-4 mark would be "par" coming out of the rivalry game. The Bradley Center would give MU a slight edge against Arizona State, so that is a huge must-win - and could let MU get to the end of non-conference play with an 8-4 mark, since MU's easiest three opponents (Alabama A&M, North Dakota and Morgan State) close out the calendar year.

Conference regular season 6-12, one win in tourney

If MU is a few points better than projections, then they can flip projected narrow losses at Seton Hall and at home against Butler, Providence and St. John's to go 10-8 in Big East play.

With a 6-12 mark, MU would project to be the 8-seed in the Big East tournament and potentially beat projected 9-seed Creighton before losing to top-seeded Villanova.

Potential bids

If MU comes out of the Big East tournament with a 15-16 record, they would still merit a bid from the CIT tournament as their last selection - under the hypothetical scenario that each team's Value Add is right, the NCAA takes the best players they can after their automatic bids, the NIT does the same, then the CIT picks the next 16 and the CBI takes the final 16. Obviously all of this is unrealistic, but for arguments sake,:

a. that would leave MU facing the overall No. 1 seed in the CIT tournament - Oklahoma State - and MU would be projected to lose that game and finish 15-17

b. ironically if MU finished just lower, they would hypothetically be the best team in the CBI and have a better chance to add at least a couple of wins and have a winning record.

c. if Taylor, Dawson and Derrick Wilson are joining the others in contributing to turn those five close losses into projected wins, then MU could enter the Big East tournament 10-8, 19-11 and be in solid shape for an NIT bid with an outside shot at the NCAA. The only problem with that scenario is that it likely gets MU out of the opening round Big East tournament games, meaning they might have to beat a 3-seed (Providence) to claim a crucial 20th win for the resume to wrap up an NIT bid or even make the case for the NCAA.

The game-by-game schedule below gives MU a "W" for a likely win, a "W?" for a narrow win under the Value Add projections for each player, a (W) for a possible game against Rider that MU would play if they do not get Michigan State in the 2nd round in Orlando.

The same is true of all variations of "L," as these project as losses but the five "L?" are the key narrow loss projections that would be most likely to flip to wins if MU is a little better than projections.

For each team, we indicate the Value Add of their top five players as well as their overall team, their conference, and their likely post season bid if they also match their projections and all their opponents do the same.

We do not want these projections to be correct - but we want to establish "par" early so we can determine if Marquette is exceeding expectations as the games play out.

I am seeing us at 9-3 in non conference. In conference I think we can go 7-2 at home. 3-6 on the road. Win one game in conference tournament. 20-12.

Wojo will have more sensible playing rotations and that will make a huge difference. We have the talent to compete well.

[GGGG]

Agree with your take.  Got tired of reading here all year how much last season was the fault of Jamil and Davante not being better leaders.  What is ironic, is in the YEAR OF THE GUARD - where to your point - the rules were bent in favor of the guard - our two max minute players (and guards) hand selected by Buzz due to "playing to the scouting report" were unable to generate any value add - all the while making it even more difficult for Davante and Jamil to operate.

But, yea, as about 5 numbskulls here argued all last season it could have gotten worse...a lot worse with playing Dawson and JJJ more.  LOL.

As for Duane Wilson injury hurting the team - think that is a cop out - he was struggling in practice as it was prior to the injury.  Additionally, if Burton, a guy with a 36% chance of making the NBA per value add, and an All Big East freshman team performer could only get 12 minutes per game - I highly doubt Buzz would have given Duane Wilson 25+ minutes per game.  Furthermore, after Dawson practically won us the Georgetown game - it didn't result in anymore playing time.  A whopping 8 minutes the next game.  Nice Buzz.

Our fearless fisherman, unable to reel in his desired cache, instead lights a stick of dynamite and throws into the lake.

[NersEllenson]

Our fearless fisherman, unable to reel in his desired cache, instead lights a stick of dynamite and throws into the lake.

LOL - I am enjoying the fishing analogies Sultan.  Well conceived.  Nonetheless, I'm very comfortable with Bama's takes on what went wrong last season.  I agree with him.  Not surprisingly, you have little you can say or comment on regarding Bama's data, other than "casting" these types of posts, as the data flies in the face of your posts all season long.  May need to try a new fishing hole - such as focusing on the upcoming season - as you were a disaster all last season.  May your posts/casts this upcoming year be more on target.

[NersEllenson]

I also am not the biggest fan of the leadership excuse.

However, Jamil did not play well that season. It's easy to blame some of it on the players surrounding him, but he was supposed to be our stud. He regressed, he played timidly, he played inefficiently.

Davante had the same teammates around him, and as a low-post center he was more dependent upon others getting him the ball. And he had to play with an ineffective Jamil, while Jamil got to play with an effective Davante. Yet Davante put up more than acceptable numbers.

Jamil's play last season was one of the main things - not THE main thing, but one of them - that condemned us to failure. To suggest otherwise would be revisionist history.

Except Jamil was actually the only guy that played to his projected Value Add rating last season!  Mayo was only player to exceed his.  Gardner's fell markedly - and believe it was the worst of his four year career. 

[MU82]

Except Jamil was actually the only guy that played to his projected Value Add rating last season!  Mayo was only player to exceed his.  Gardner's fell markedly - and believe it was the worst of his four year career. 

I don't give a rat's rump about his projected Value Add.

I have eyes. I can see. You have talked many times about your background making you an educated observer that allows you to see things statistics don't always measure accurately. I'm an educated observer, too, as are many others on this board.

If you really think Jamil actually exceeded expectations - ESPN, for example, predicted in preseason that he would be one of the nation's 25 "breakout players" - then I truly wonder about you, Ners.

[jesmu84]

Except Jamil was actually the only guy that played to his projected Value Add rating last season!  Mayo was only player to exceed his.  Gardner's fell markedly - and believe it was the worst of his four year career.  

Unless I'm totally reading things incorrectly, wasn't jamils predicted VA for 2014 4.96 and actual VA 1.47?

[GGGG]

Not surprisingly, you have little you can say or comment on regarding Bama's data, other than "casting" these types of posts, as the data flies in the face of your posts all season long.  

The same data prompted John Pudner to say this on another board:

"I really think Dawson can be great, but from a purely statistical bases the fact is Dawson was one of the worst players in the country. His offensive rating was 84.9, about 10 points worse than Derrick Wilson’s terrible offensive rating of 94.6, in a year that the overall national average was an all-time high 104.3. He had the worst steal percentage on the team of 0.7 per opponent’s 100 trips down the court AND HE IS A GUARD. He hit 37.5% of his two-pointers, much worse than even the poor shooting Wilson. I love the kid and see potential SUBJECTIVELY, but from a purely statistical perspective he would have contended for the worst player in a major conference last year."


This same data prompted you to say this:

"I know you buy into his analysis as THe Bible and foolproof - but I'm happy to go with my eye test analysis."


So which is it Ners?  Are you now going to be a pro-data guy?  Because I think if you are going to now trumpet Pudner's data, you also have to live with the implications that this data might show that your "eye test" might need some spectacles.  

[bamamarquettefan]

Except Jamil was actually the only guy that played to his projected Value Add rating last season!  Mayo was only player to exceed his.  Gardner's fell markedly - and believe it was the worst of his four year career. 

While it is true Davante dropped in Value Add last year, the drop was from being in the top 2% of all players to the top 4% of all players, so still a stud.

As for john dawson and the data vs observation argument, keep in mind that the more data you have the more you should weight it whereas the margin of error on data is much higher if you don't have very few minutes.

I defended dawson's 0 value add because his stats were terrible last year. However we had enough data to see the team would likely not even make the nit if derrick wilson got most of the minutes last year, so I did want to get Dawson out there and take a chance that he would hit some shots and make teams guard him to free up jamil and davante. I didn't think it was goimg to work but it was 4th and 27.  At last year's georgia at auburn I didn't think it would work to heave the ball down the field so it would bounce off the uga defenders hand to our guy for a touchdown, but leaving dawson on the bench was like buzz running a qb sneak on that 4th and 27.

[NersEllenson]

The same data prompted John Pudner to say this on another board:

"I really think Dawson can be great, but from a purely statistical bases the fact is Dawson was one of the worst players in the country. His offensive rating was 84.9, about 10 points worse than Derrick Wilson’s terrible offensive rating of 94.6, in a year that the overall national average was an all-time high 104.3. He had the worst steal percentage on the team of 0.7 per opponent’s 100 trips down the court AND HE IS A GUARD. He hit 37.5% of his two-pointers, much worse than even the poor shooting Wilson. I love the kid and see potential SUBJECTIVELY, but from a purely statistical perspective he would have contended for the worst player in a major conference last year."


This same data prompted you to say this:

"I know you buy into his analysis as THe Bible and foolproof - but I'm happy to go with my eye test analysis."


So which is it Ners?  Are you now going to be a pro-data guy?  Because I think if you are going to now trumpet Pudner's data, you also have to live with the implications that this data might show that your "eye test" might need some spectacles.  

I'm not going to re-hash everything all over again regarding these two.  What I know is the ORating figure which everyone is using is from Pomroy.  Pomroy doesn't even assign an ORating for a player who plays less than 10 minutes in a game - as he views it statistically irrelevant.  To quote Bama: As for john dawson and the data vs observation argument, keep in mind that the more data you have the more you should weight it whereas the margin of error on data is much higher if you don't have very few many (believe this was the point) minutes.

So to answer your question...essentially the statistical rating you are trying to use - ORating - is basically statistically irrelevant as viewed through the lens of a stat guy, in that Dawson averaged 10 minutes per game for the season..the absolute MINIMUM threshold Pomroy would use to assign an ORating (in games he got to play in.)  I've already done the analysis of games Dawson played more than 13 minutes - the O Rating went to something like 97.6.  For those games he played between 10 and 13 minutes, his O Rating was ~78.5.

I believe in the eye test above stats, yet it is the intersection of the two that give the most relevant assessment of a player in any sport. 

Let's not forget that Derrick had THE BIGGEST SAMPLE SIZE of any MU player (minutes played) he scored a 0.00 Value Add for last season - which is almost beyond comprehension.  As I said all year...it certainly wasn't going to get any worse playing Dawson...as it was clear as day from the eye test alone...we weren't going to be able to win at any level of necessity with Derrick playing 32+ minutes per game at the point.  I mean when your own eyes see a high major PG that isn't defended within 5 feet on the perimeter, that's all you need to see to know that is going to cause major problems for the other 4 guys on the floor.  Even more of a hinderance when that ineptitude was paired with another guard that was perhaps the most limited shooting guard in recent memory, with regard to ability to make a 2 point FG.

[NersEllenson]

but leaving dawson on the bench was like buzz running a qb sneak on that 4th and 27.

Post of the year.  #donedeal

[MUDPT]

Quick alternative analysis:

MU's eFG% was crap last year. On offense it was monumentally poor vs. the past decade+. Easily the worst we've seen in more than a decade. Puke. The Warriors lose Davante and Chris, but the comps of others give them a great opportunity for improvement. Jamil's heavy 2FGA (2nd most on team) kept eFG% down. 3FGA/FGA can rise this season and the conversion rate has plenty of room for improvement.

I like MU's eFG% to improve in 2014-15.

MU's defensive eFG% wasn't good either, but mostly due to getting scorched from beyond the arc. BEast opp's shot 39.4% 3FG against MU (and it wasn't all Creighton's doing - many teams got in on the fun). Some love to talk about last year's starting guards from an offensive perspective, but consider their size and athletic abilities as well.

MU's def 2FG% will be challenged, but they can more than make up for it defending the perimeter (3FG% could decrease just because of unusually high numbers / chance and also because of MU's actual defense).

I like MU's defensive eFG% to improve in 2014-15.

eFG% matters most. Let's collect those wins.

NCAA tourney, baby.

There is no such thing as 3 point defense.  You can only control whether teams take 3 pointers.  It's been proven by Pomeroy that teams cannot control the opposing teams 3P FG%.  Hanner did an awesome study on how 3P% and FT% affected teams.  Marquette was very, very slightly lucky last year.  http://basketball.realgm.com/article/233373  Buzz hasn't been great on 3PA/FGA.
2014: 309
2013: 276
2012: 162
2011: 214
2010: 55 (another reason they succeeded that year)
2009: 234

[NersEllenson]

There is no such thing as 3 point defense.  You can only control whether teams take 3 pointers.  It's been proven by Pomeroy that teams cannot control the opposing teams 3P FG%.  Hanner did an awesome study on how 3P% and FT% affected teams.  Marquette was very, very slightly lucky last year.  http://basketball.realgm.com/article/233373  Buzz hasn't been great on 3PA/FGA.
2014: 309
2013: 276
2012: 162
2011: 214
2010: 55 (another reason they succeeded that year)
2009: 234

Pretty remarkable that we had our most experienced team under Buzz in the way of returning guys/years in the program, and Buzz was playing the guards who were "playing to the scouting report," and yet we finished 309 out of 351 D1 teams in 3PA/FGA.  For what its worth (not much) McNeese State was the 309 ranked team by Pomroy...that's the neighborhood of how bad we were defensively last season in this key metric.

Think Buzz may need to revisit his whole protect the paint at all costs defensive philosophy.  Ironic that in the year the LEAST was expected from Buzz's teams - 2010 - that was the BEST any of his teams defended the three....and then last year when perhaps MORE was expected of that team than any of Buzz's others - it was the WORST at yielding 3 point FG attempts, and subsequently became Buzz's worst team at MU.

[muwarrior69]

Let's face it. Buzz screwed with the team last year and we all now know why. Yes, the projected stats for the team don't look good, but the stats don't measure what is in a kid's mind and attitude. Wesley Mathews really blossomed in his last season after a coaching change. I hope the same can be said for this group as I think they all played well below what they are capable of playing. We will know soon enough if these guys can show their true talent or not.

[Dawson Rental]

Agree with your take.  Got tired of reading here all year how much last season was the fault of Jamil and Davante not being better leaders.  What is ironic, is in the YEAR OF THE GUARD - where to your point - the rules were bent in favor of the guard - our two max minute players (and guards) hand selected by Buzz due to "playing to the scouting report" were unable to generate any value add - all the while making it even more difficult for Davante and Jamil to operate.

But, yea, as about 5 numbskulls here argued all last season it could have gotten worse...a lot worse with playing Dawson and JJJ more.  LOL.

As for Duane Wilson injury hurting the team - think that is a cop out - he was struggling in practice as it was prior to the injury.  Additionally, if Burton, a guy with a 36% chance of making the NBA per value add, and an All Big East freshman team performer could only get 12 minutes per game - I highly doubt Buzz would have given Duane Wilson 25+ minutes per game.  Furthermore, after Dawson practically won us the Georgetown game - it didn't result in anymore playing time.  A whopping 8 minutes the next game.  Nice Buzz.

Playing well against Georgetown was no way to get increased minutes as Steve Taylor discovered, as well.

[Dawson Rental]

I am seeing us at 9-3 in non conference. In conference I think we can go 7-2 at home. 3-6 on the road. Win one game in conference tournament. 20-12.

Wojo will have more sensible playing rotations and that will make a huge difference. We have the talent to compete well.

Please return my avatar.  You have over-imbibed.

[tower912]

This year, MU is two injuries/transfers/academic issues away from being DePaul. For example:  JJJ transfers and STjr reinjures his knee.    Deonte hurts his knee and Dawson gets homesick.   Carlino breaks his foot and Luke is adademically ineligible.   I shudder just to think of any of those things.   It will get better, but this year everything has to go absolutely perfect for this team to be competitive.  

[Wojo'sMojo]

This year, MU is two injuries/transfers/academic issues away from being DePaul. For example:  JJJ transfers and STjr reinjures his knee.    Deonte hurts his knee and Dawson gets homesick.   Carlino breaks his foot and Luke is adademically ineligible.   I shudder just to think of any of those things.   It will get better, but this year everything has to go absolutely perfect for this team to be competitive.  

Wow, quite the optimist you are. This team will be competitive night in and night out, there is too much talent not to be. Just because all the scholarships aren't filled doesn't mean doom and gloom.

[tower912]

I will be thrilled to be wrong.   

[GurneeHitchkr]

Back to topic...

[GurneeHitchkr]

Sorry.  Back to topic...
I just hope they go at least 17-15 to keep the above .500 streak alive.
I at least look forward to seeing the young guys play and see how the others do with Wojo's coaching.  Then in 2 years when we're kicking a$s, I can say "I remember when"...

[Jay Bee]

There is no such thing as 3 point defense.  You can only control whether teams take 3 pointers.  It's been proven by Pomeroy that teams cannot control the opposing teams 3P FG%.  

Your claims are patently false and Ken will tell you that is not something he proves and is not something he believes.

You are confused.

[MU82]

This year, MU is two injuries/transfers/academic issues away from being DePaul. For example:  JJJ transfers and STjr reinjures his knee.    Deonte hurts his knee and Dawson gets homesick.   Carlino breaks his foot and Luke is adademically ineligible.   I shudder just to think of any of those things.   It will get better, but this year everything has to go absolutely perfect for this team to be competitive.  

If they all catch ebola, it will make for a definite downer of a season.

[pbiflyer]

Strange that we were all so worried about who we would hire as a coach or that we talk about in game coaching abilities, since according to the article, it doesn't matter squat.
I prefer the Bum Phillips (former coach of the Houston Oilers, for you youngsters) evaluation of a Don Shula lead team. He said about Shula that he could take his and beat yours, then take yours and beat his.
We will have a whole new system and trying to apply a formula and make a prediction based on it is stupid at best.

[LloydMooresLegs]

Strange that we were all so worried about who we would hire as a coach or that we talk about in game coaching abilities, since according to the article, it doesn't matter squat.
I prefer the Bum Phillips (former coach of the Houston Oilers, for you youngsters) evaluation of a Don Shula lead team. He said about Shula that he could take his and beat yours, then take yours and beat his.
We will have a whole new system and trying to apply a formula and make a prediction based on it is stupid at best.

he would take your'n and beat his'n or his'n and beat your'n

[MUDPT]

Your claims are patently false and Ken will tell you that is not something he proves and is not something he believes.

You are confused.

So 15 teams in Division 1 are outside of 2 standard deviations, in terms of 3P defense.  If it was completely random, he said they would have 7 teams.  I was wrong that teams cannot completely control 3P%, but it is still really random.  Hanner proved though that we were still a little lucky. Yes, teams shot better behind the arc, but they shot worse from the free throw line.  Anything else I'm confused about?  

[THRILLHO]

Rather than asserting that people are confused without offering any specifics let's just look at what he actually says:
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/3_point_defense_should_not_be_defined_by_opponents_3p

It’s because the defense has little control over its opponents’ 3P%.

(looks at numbers...)

We’re talking about a difference of one make every two or three games between the best and worst groups. Without more analysis, one can’t say precisely how much skill a team has at influencing its opponents’ three-point percentage, but there’s a fair amount of evidence it’s not much

With few exceptions, the best measure of three-point defense is a team’s ability to keep the opponents from taking 3’s.

Nobody with any knowledge of the game would talk about free throw defense using opponents’ FT% as if it was a real thing, yet we’ll hear plenty of references to three-point defense in that way from famous and respected people. Of course, both free-throw defense and three-point defense exist, but it’s much better measured in the amount of shots taken and not in the noisy world of the percentage of shots an opponent makes.

So MUDPT is essentially right about what KenPom says -- you shouldn't measure a defense by the 3 point make percentage. But MUDPT is technically wrong in saying the following as a description of kenpom:

There is no such thing as 3 point defense.

Since in that link KP essentially redefines 3 point defense as limiting the number of 3 point shots taken.

[Dr. Blackheart]

MU's defensive philosophy was the opposite of its offensive under Buzz: Limit paint touches and fouls, chase the three point shooters on ball rotations. According to Pomeroy: Fail--20.0% of MU's points came on treys while 32.9% of its opponents' points came off trios.  Defensively, that was a #14 in bad in the nation, for those keeping score at home.

As mind warping as last season was, MU lost its NCAA bid with losses in its last three games by a total of five points (along with two other BE OT losses). A 20-12 record sure would have sounded nice at season's end, I'm really a badger fan?

[NersEllenson]

MU's defensive philosophy was the opposite of its offensive under Buzz: Limit paint touches and fouls, chase the three point shooters on ball rotations. According to Pomeroy: Fail--20.0% of MU's points came on treys while 32.9% of its opponents' points came off trios.  Defensively, that was a #14 in bad in the nation, for those keeping score at home.

As mind warping as last season was, MU lost its NCAA bid with losses in its last three games by a total of five points (along with two other BE OT losses). A 20-12 record sure would have sounded nice at season's end, I'm really a badger fan?

More mind warping is that as close to victory as we were in those games, we did it while we had a guy who played 37.6 minutes per game, while averaging 1.6ppg, on 2 of 9 FG shooting, and 1 of 6 from the FT Line.  Pretty amazing we could be that close to victory with our leading minute getter in those 3 games making the above contributions.  Point being, the team wasn't very far away from being able to win a lot more games, if it got just minimal/marginal production from that position.  Oh well.  What could have been if only Buzz wasn't being a total and complete douche.

[tower912]

Ners ain't afraid of no ban. 

[NersEllenson]

Ners ain't afraid of no ban. 

 
Guess this is what you resort to Tower, when you can't counterpoint, the point made. As illustrated, it didn't take hardly anything to make last year's team a winner - other than common sense coaching.  But instead Buzz gave us a big F You as a going away present.  Just as he did in his comments about the Big East, the TV deal, etc., as being reasons why he "chose" to go to a bottom feeder in the ACC.

Back on point -  as Bama said:  Leaving Dawson on the bench was the equivalent of Buzz running a QB sneak on Fourth and 27.

Nearly impossible to win, when you roll with a guy who gives you as little production as we got from Derrick those last 3 games.  And this doesn't even quantify how hard it became for everyone else on the court to perform due to playing 4 on 5.

[MU82]

As mind warping as last season was, MU lost its NCAA bid with losses in its last three games by a total of five points (along with two other BE OT losses). A 20-12 record sure would have sounded nice at season's end, I'm really a badger fan?

I am never much swayed by this kind of argument.

Could we have won those games? Sure.

We also had OT wins over Georgetown and DePaul, a two-point win over Georgetown, a one-point win over Seton Hall, and even ridiculously close wins over Southern and New Hampshire. Could have lost all of those, or at least some of 'em.

In the end, 17-15 was about right for the way that team played all season. Just good enough to be not quite good enough.

[tower912]

Guess this is what you resort to Tower, when you can't counterpoint, the point made. As illustrated, it didn't take hardly anything to make last year's team a winner - other than common sense coaching.  But instead Buzz gave us a big F You as a going away present.  Just as he did in his comments about the Big East, the TV deal, etc., as being reasons why he "chose" to go to a bottom feeder in the ACC.

Back on point -  as Bama said:  Leaving Dawson on the bench was the equivalent of Buzz running a QB sneak on Fourth and 27.

Nearly impossible to win, when you roll with a guy who gives you as little production as we got from Derrick those last 3 games.  And this doesn't even quantify how hard it became for everyone else on the court to perform due to playing 4 on 5.

Fair enough.   I said weeks ago I was done with the topic and had a moment of weakness. 

[real chili 83]

Fair enough.   I said weeks ago I was done with the topic and had a moment of weakness. 

Tower, no need to retract.  I had a similar reaction.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I am never much swayed by this kind of argument.

Could we have won those games? Sure.

We also had OT wins over Georgetown and DePaul, a two-point win over Georgetown, a one-point win over Seton Hall, and even ridiculously close wins over Southern and New Hampshire. Could have lost all of those, or at least some of 'em.

In the end, 17-15 was about right for the way that team played all season. Just good enough to be not quite good enough.

I agree, "the woulda, shoulda, coulda" game looking backwards on a flawed team really doesn't fly.  However, my point was the defensive philosophy will change to guard the perimeter and limit threes. For example, Duke was fourth best in limiting three point rate, and #1 in percent of points on threes. Yes, much different talent on the two teams, but the philosophy will be very different as well.  Namely, stressing treys on offense of defense, as KPom points out.  So why the talent reflected in last year's VA numbers are lower, the coach philosophies will be 180 degrees different so I expect individual improvement looking forward over last year's stinker.

As to last year, MU set a Big East (old or new) record on the number of OT games. The unusually large number of OT games in most Buzz seasons seemed to be the norm.  Why?  Always a fine line between W's and L's under him. Even Southern and New Hampshire were launching on MU.

[MU82]

I agree, "the woulda, shoulda, coulda" game looking backwards on a flawed team really doesn't fly.  However, my point was the defensive philosophy will change to guard the perimeter and limit threes. For example, Duke was fourth best in limiting three point rate, and #1 in percent of points on threes. Yes, much different talent on the two teams, but the philosophy will be very different as well.  Namely, stressing treys on offense of defense, as KPom points out.  So why the talent reflected in last year's VA numbers are lower, the coach philosophies will be 180 degrees different so I expect individual improvement looking forward over last year's stinker.

As to last year, MU set a Big East (old or new) record on the number of OT games. The unusually large number of OT games in most Buzz seasons seemed to be the norm.  Why?  Always a fine line between W's and L's under him. Even Southern and New Hampshire were launching on MU.

One of the things I said often (probably too often, but not "Ners often") was that the disparity from the 3-point line was killing us last season. An outstanding team - like the 2012-13 version - can overcome some of that. But for an OK team like last year's to go into every game pretty much knowing it would lose the 3-point battle by 9 or 12 or 21 points, that's rough.

So I hope you are right, because we need to make a lot more 3s and need to stop them, too. Like it or not, college basketball has become a guard's game and a perimeter game in which spreading the floor is the pretty much the most important thing an offense can do (aside from scoring, of course).

[Mr. Nielsen]

CIT is for mid-majors and the CBI is a pay for play tourney.

[Jay Bee]

One of the things I said often (probably too often, but not "Ners often") was that the disparity from the 3-point line was killing us last season. An outstanding team - like the 2012-13 version - can overcome some of that. But for an OK team like last year's to go into every game pretty much knowing it would lose the 3-point battle by 9 or 12 or 21 points, that's rough.

So I hope you are right, because we need to make a lot more 3s and need to stop them, too. Like it or not, college basketball has become a guard's game and a perimeter game in which spreading the floor is the pretty much the most important thing an offense can do (aside from scoring, of course).

Saying this even once is too often.

MU 2013-14 games in which the opp made more treys: 22
Record in those 22 games: 10-12
Average deficit in 3FGM in 10 wins: 4.9
Average deficit in 3FGM in 12 losses: 5.0 (3.9 excluding 2 Creighton losses)
Syracuse record in games where opp made more treys: 16-5; avg deficit of 4.2.
Colorado record in games where opp made more treys? 13-9; avg 3-points (total pts) deficit in wins = 11.1

Opp 3FGM > Your Team isn't by itself an obstacle or something that needs to be "overcome." Depends on various other factors. By itself? Just a different way of scoring and not necessarily better or worse.

Conf opp's shooting almost 40% from deep? THAT's an obstacle.

[Henry Sugar]

Paint Touches are bullcrap

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Paint Touches are bullcrap

That's a good topic:

I recall Buzz telling an antidote about how he came up with the philosophy, and I believe it was the first summer he was HC at MU. He was trying to convince the 3 amigos to not jack up the first available shot in the possession, (even if they made the shot).

The 3 of them were good enough to get their shot whenever they wanted (in summer ball), so Buzz had to find a way to dial them back. He told them the ball had to touch the paint first, then they could shoot whatever shot they wanted.

I think Buzz started charting it in practice, and eventually they charted it in games.

Now, with how much Buzz loves stats, I figured he must know the validity of the stat.

However, as Henry pointed out previously, the stat might be fools gold and a poor indicator, especially if you are using it to form your entire philosophy on offense.

It's a stat/theory that might work well for SOME teams, but it might not be the magic bullet that Buzz thought/thinks.

It will be interesting to watch if he sticks with the philosophy at WVU.

[leever]

It will be interesting to watch if he sticks with the philosophy at WVU.

That would truly be hilarious if Buzz was coaching at WVU!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

That would truly be hilarious if Buzz was coaching at WVU!

Crap.

VTech.

[Newsdreams]

That would truly be hilarious if Buzz was coaching at WVU!

He would be dancing!

[Dr. Blackheart]

Paint Touches are bullcrap

<like>. I would take a paint touch over paint touches.  See Ryan, Bo.

[MU82]

Saying this even once is too often.

MU 2013-14 games in which the opp made more treys: 22
Record in those 22 games: 10-12
Average deficit in 3FGM in 10 wins: 4.9
Average deficit in 3FGM in 12 losses: 5.0 (3.9 excluding 2 Creighton losses)
Syracuse record in games where opp made more treys: 16-5; avg deficit of 4.2.
Colorado record in games where opp made more treys? 13-9; avg 3-points (total pts) deficit in wins = 11.1

Opp 3FGM > Your Team isn't by itself an obstacle or something that needs to be "overcome." Depends on various other factors. By itself? Just a different way of scoring and not necessarily better or worse.

Conf opp's shooting almost 40% from deep? THAT's an obstacle.

Oh sure ... come back at me with stats and facts, you bastard you!!

My eye test says we went into far too many games knowing we were going to lose 21-6 on 3-pointers and that our opponents would be able to spread the court far better than we would, but you have the stats.

So maybe we don't need no stinkin' shooting after all!