Who is the most offensively/defensively efficient players on the team?
Just want to know because I think it's time for Coobs to ride the pine. My guess is he's one of the most inefficient players on the team. He can't do anything with the ball.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 05, 2009, 08:28:37 PM
Who is the most offensively/defensively efficient players on the team?
Just want to know because I think it's time for Coobs to ride the pine. My guess is he's one of the most inefficient players on the team. He can't do anything with the ball.
Who's going to take his spot in an already short rotation? You think Buzz wants to play players the caliber of Cooby and Acker? Judging by the talent he has recruited in two years I'd say they aren't what he's looking for/up to his standard.
Quote from: Stone Cold on December 05, 2009, 08:33:10 PM
Who's going to take his spot in an already short rotation? You think Buzz wants to play players the caliber of Cooby and Acker? Judging by the talent he has recruited in two years I'd say they aren't what he's looking for/up to his standard.
Buycks.
with
DJO
Butler
Hayward
Fulce
No way does Coobs start.
Buycks, DJO, Acker, and Cooby are the only guys on our roster who can guard the opponent's guards. And "guard" isn't always the right word with this bunch.
Quote from: Stone Cold on December 05, 2009, 08:37:07 PM
Buycks, DJO, Acker, and Cooby are the only guys on our roster who can guard the opponent's guards. And "guard" isn't always the right word with this bunch.
I agree with the posts about MU doing what they can with a limited roster.
But if the teams go big, we have to go as big as we can.
If the teams go small, then at least we have THAT covered.
Coobs is an adequate defender and a spotty shooter. But he can't create his own shot.
Mo can create his own shot and really knows how to set up his men especially on the break, but he gives up so much in height.
I just want to reiterate that Coobs should NOT start whatsoever.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 05, 2009, 08:35:01 PM
Buycks.
with
DJO
Butler
Hayward
Fulce
No way does Coobs start.
So you want the player who has TEN turnovers in the last two games to be our starting PG?
I really can't believe we only brought 2 off the bench today. I don't see it hurting us by bringing Maymon or Williams in for a few minutes to see how they perform. You can't play with 7 players, especially when the two bench players combine to equal the minutes of one starter. Props to Acker though, considering his minutes he did a fine job. I also thought Fulce was aggressive around the rim- rebounding especially- in the first half particularly.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 05, 2009, 08:28:37 PM
Who is the most offensively/defensively efficient players on the team?
Just want to know because I think it's time for Coobs to ride the pine. My guess is he's one of the most inefficient players on the team. He can't do anything with the ball.
The answer to your offensive efficiency question is easy. It's Jimmy Butler, then the rest. Butler is 26th in the nation right now in offensive efficiency despite his out of character performance from the line during the FSU game. Cubillan's efficiency isn't bad, but he also doesn't have to take many shots. Dwight Buycks has the lowest offensive efficiency of the top 6 scorers, mainly because he has a much higher turnover percentage than anyone else.
Jimmy is awesome because he doesn't turnover the ball at all(1 turnover a game average), is shooting about 60% from the field and hits a good % from the FT line, FSU notwithstanding. He was a 77% FT shooter last year, so I would expect him to up his makes as time goes on.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=dwight-burke&jimmy-butler=2009-2010&p1=jimmy-butler&p2=lazar-hayward&p3=darius-johnson-odom&p4=david-cubillan&p5=maurice-acker (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=dwight-burke&jimmy-butler=2009-2010&p1=jimmy-butler&p2=lazar-hayward&p3=darius-johnson-odom&p4=david-cubillan&p5=maurice-acker)
Quote from: Stone Cold on December 05, 2009, 08:33:10 PM
Who's going to take his spot in an already short rotation? You think Buzz wants to play players the caliber of Cooby and Acker? Judging by the talent he has recruited in two years I'd say they aren't what he's looking for/up to his standard.
Did you know that Acker had 10 points and 7 assists yesterday?
Also for the season ----50% on FGs-----47% on treys------and 4 to 1.5 assists to TO ratio.
Quote from: Murffieus on December 06, 2009, 07:58:36 AM
Did you know that Acker had 10 points and 7 assists yesterday?
Yes, he did... Unfortunately most of that came once the game was out of hand. When it mattered, he was a non-factor.
Quote from: RJax55 on December 06, 2009, 08:48:12 AM
Yes, he did... Unfortunately most of that came once the game was out of hand. When it mattered, he was a non-factor.
you do realize that we only lost by 4, don't you?
I'd like to know what your definition of, "out of hand" is.
Quote from: muhoosier260 on December 05, 2009, 11:56:01 PM
I really can't believe we only brought 2 off the bench today. I don't see it hurting us by bringing Maymon or Williams in for a few minutes to see how they perform. You can't play with 7 players, especially when the two bench players combine to equal the minutes of one starter. Props to Acker though, considering his minutes he did a fine job. I also thought Fulce was aggressive around the rim- rebounding especially- in the first half particularly.
maymon was out with a hip injury...
Not bad when you're passing around the outside of a zone 70% of the time for Acker. When's the last time Acker has gotten into the lane on dribble penetration?
And there's also a tiny thing called defense in the game of basketball in which Acker might be the worst defensive guard in the big east. Negates much of if not all of what he "creates" on the offensive end.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 06, 2009, 08:52:42 AM
you do realize that we only lost by 4, don't you?
I'd like to know what your definition of, "out of hand" is.
"Out of hand" - When your down double digits with under 3 minutes to play and the other team is giving you uncontested shots, so they don't foul.
Your right, it was only a 4 point lost. Sometimes final scores can be deceiving... Does anybody think that was a close game yesterday?
Quote from: RJax55 on December 06, 2009, 09:08:26 AM
"Out of hand" - When your down double digits with under 3 minutes to play and the other team is giving you uncontested shots, so they don't foul.
Your right, it was only a 4 point lost. Sometimes final scores can be deceiving... Does anybody think that was a close game yesterday?
I'd say that is a pretty liberal definition of 'out of hand'... Most people would liken 'out of hand' to 'insurmountable'.
Warning:
Any discussion that ends with Acker or Cubillan as adequate BE guards will result in puking on my keyboard.
Quote from: RJax55 on December 06, 2009, 09:08:26 AM
"Out of hand" - When your down double digits with under 3 minutes to play and the other team is giving you uncontested shots, so they don't foul.
Your right, it was only a 4 point lost. Sometimes final scores can be deceiving... Does anybody think that was a close game yesterday?
You must have been watching a different game. From 3:08 to game's end we scored 7 points on free throws. The difference was not that NC State gave up because they had a lead--it was because MU FINALLY started playing with some purpose and intensity.
If we had played the first 17 minutes of the 2nd half with even half the intensity of the last 3, we would have easily blown out NC State.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 06, 2009, 08:52:42 AM
you do realize that we only lost by 4, don't you?
I'd like to know what your definition of, "out of hand" is.
We trailed by 12 with 1 minute left. I'd consider that "out of hand". In the final 59 seconds Acker scored half his points (5) and had nearly one third of his assists (2). Great "garbage time" numbers but meaningless ones.
I have a problem with the spreadsheet I use to generate season totals, so here are some numbers over the last five games.
Last Five Games Offensive Rating Defensive Rating Net Points Added
Hayward, Lazar 106.7 92.7 27.7
Butler, Jimmy 125.2 91.4 21.2
Acker, Maurice 124.9 92.9 8.2
DJO 115.4 100.0 6.6
Fulce, Joseph n/a n/a -1.5
Maymon, Jeronne n/a n/a -6.3
Buycks, Dwight 92.0 97.0 -8.3
Cubillan, David 130.5 101.9 -9.1
Team Average 109.9 96.9
Sorry about formatting. Net points is sort of the bottom line of how much a player contributes to point spread. Positive is good and negative is bad. For offensive rating, we're looking for a player that has a rating higher than team average. For defensive rating, we're looking for a player that has a rating lower than team average.
Short answer is that Acker is one of the few positive contributors over the past five games. Fulce and Maymon are sort of incomplete.
rocky sez: fixed formatting a bit
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 05, 2009, 08:28:37 PM
Who is the most offensively/defensively efficient players on the team?
Just want to know because I think it's time for Coobs to ride the pine. My guess is he's one of the most inefficient players on the team. He can't do anything with the ball.
edit: Okay, Sugar, posted while I was typing this up. I figure I'll post this anyway. I'm guessing the defensive ratings are team ratings while those players are in the game?Offense Ratings from statsheet:
Frozena: 153.6 (awesome)
Butler: 138.1
Acker: 122.3
DJO: 116.7
Cubes: 116.7
EWill: 113.2
Hayward: 107.8
Fulce: 106.4
Buycks: 94.8
Maymon: 91.4
Mbao: 89.2
Otule: 87.2
Keep in mind that guards typically have lower effiencies, and garbage time has a positive impact while higher # of possessions used typically has a negative impact. Burke and Hazel had ratings last year similar to McNeal and Hayward, respectively, and Fitz led the team the two years prior. Of course, there are other aspects of offense that aren't reflected by offensive efficiency - assists, for example, are not part of the formula.
There really aren't any individual defensive efficiency ratings out there. In theory, the math shouldn't be any different than it is for offensive ratings but you'd have to figure out how to assign the offensive stats from the other team to individual defenders on the floor. Even if you broke down the play-by-play with who each defender is assigned to, you'd still have to figure out how to account for rotations, fast breaks, putbacks and the like. You might be able to get something from +/- numbers but even those aren't prevalent because they aren't very useful.
Quote from: dsfire on December 06, 2009, 03:52:16 PM
Keep in mind that guards typically have lower effiencies, and garbage time has a positive impact while higher # of possessions used typically has a negative impact. Burke and Hazel had ratings last year similar to McNeal and Hayward, respectively, and Fitz led the team the two years prior. Of course, there are other aspects of offense that aren't reflected by offensive efficiency - assists, for example, are not part of the formula.
There really aren't any individual defensive efficiency ratings out there. In theory, the math shouldn't be any different than it is for offensive ratings but you'd have to figure out how to assign the offensive stats from the other team to individual defenders on the floor. Even if you broke down the play-by-play with who each defender is assigned to, you'd still have to figure out how to account for rotations, fast breaks, putbacks and the like. You might be able to get something from +/- numbers but even those aren't prevalent because they aren't very useful.
Just to wonk this out a bit. Many times guards have higher efficiencies, especially if they are three point shooters (Diener and Novak had incredible efficiencies). Also, assists are calculated as part of the Efficiency Calculation, but mostly to determine the quality of the points produced. The second big piece of the puzzle on offensive efficiency is usage, and one ideally wants high usage and high efficiency.
As for defensive ratings, I'll say yes and no. Dean Oliver, who developed all of the formulas that Pomeroy made famous, did develop defensive ratings as well. I use his calculations. However, here's the catch. Defensive ratings are an approximation. They're based on how well the team did overall defensively, and then adjusted up or down by defensive statistics like steals, blocks, defensive rebounds, and even fouls.
Like dsfire says, in order to really do defensive ratings, one would need to know a whole set of new stats that aren't in the box score (like guarded a player - missed shot; guarded a player - made shot). At one point there was an effort to make these new stats part of the WNBA, also initiated by Dean Oliver for what it's worth. Brian Lerner from Hoya Prospectus developed a program where he gets closer to this based on the play by play data that is produced for games, so he also does a variation of defensive stats too.
Where the defensive ratings fall apart somewhat is with a player like James last year, who played a lot of defense by preventing his man from even getting the ball. The defensive stats don't collect in that situation even though James played great d.
Finally, even though they aren't readily available and they're an approximation, I like to track the defensive stats because they also allow for the net points calculation. I find the net points view a remarkably insightful look into how productive a player is out on the court. Like, say, Cubillan (or Fitz)... who has a decent offensive rating, but limited usage in long stretches on the court for a negative net contribution.
/wonk
edit: later tonight I'll put some formatting and revised numbers up.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 06, 2009, 05:01:56 PM
Just to wonk this out a bit. Many times guards have higher efficiencies, especially if they are three point shooters (Diener and Novak had incredible efficiencies). Also, assists are calculated as part of the Efficiency Calculation, but mostly to determine the quality of the points produced. The second big piece of the puzzle on offensive efficiency is usage, and one ideally wants high usage and high efficiency.
That's true about guards - I guess I'm thinking more of what I've seen with respect to average level guards and forwards than stars. I suspect a piece of that is because big guys with lower usage tend to score a larger percentage of their points off putbacks, dunks and lay-ins, as opposed to having to post-up defenders. Whereas an average guard may not be as well off just from taking open shots cause they still have to deal with the fact that they're 20+ feet away from the hoop. Just a guess.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the assists - the statsheet glossary says offensive efficiency = points scored / (FGA - OR + TO + 0.475*FTA). The kenpom blog lists the same thing with points scored on top. I did find some talk from NBA stat sites about splitting up points from a basket when determining points produced. Does everyone work in assists, or is it kind of a mish-mash?
Calculations on usage, offensive and defensive ratings, and Net points added for the season so far. The data is sorted from highest to lowest by Net Points Added.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/09-10IndividualStats-1.png)
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 05, 2009, 08:28:37 PM
Who is the most offensively/defensively efficient players on the team?
Just want to know because I think it's time for Coobs to ride the pine. My guess is he's one of the most inefficient players on the team. He can't do anything with the ball.
Good call. Still not sure MU can go with just three guards? DB and DJO can't play every minute of every game...
Quote from: dsfire on December 06, 2009, 06:41:39 PM
That's true about guards - I guess I'm thinking more of what I've seen with respect to average level guards and forwards than stars. I suspect a piece of that is because big guys with lower usage tend to score a larger percentage of their points off putbacks, dunks and lay-ins, as opposed to having to post-up defenders. Whereas an average guard may not be as well off just from taking open shots cause they still have to deal with the fact that they're 20+ feet away from the hoop. Just a guess.
Totally agree. It's the three-point shooters that have higher efficiencies as guards, but not your average guard.
Quote from: dsfire on December 06, 2009, 06:41:39 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the assists - the statsheet glossary says offensive efficiency = points scored / (FGA - OR + TO + 0.475*FTA). The kenpom blog lists the same thing with points scored on top. I did find some talk from NBA stat sites about splitting up points from a basket when determining points produced. Does everyone work in assists, or is it kind of a mish-mash?
Team offensive efficiency is not the same thing as an individual player offensive rating. The glossary you quoted above is just points per possessions. The calculation for individual player offensive rating uses a set of formulas that are way more complex.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 06, 2009, 09:25:09 PM
Calculations on usage, offensive and defensive ratings, and Net points added for the season so far. The data is sorted from highest to lowest by Net Points Added.
How does Buycks end up in the positive with offensive and defensive ratings below the team average?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 06, 2009, 09:37:15 PM
Team offensive efficiency is not the same thing as an individual player offensive rating. The glossary you quoted above is just points per possessions. The calculation for individual player offensive rating uses a set of formulas that are way more complex.
Ah, hadn't realized that. The statsheet glossary could use some work. Looking closer at the kenpom explanations, he mentions the formulas are too complex to be listed and credits Dean Oliver. I'll have to add that book to my wish list.
Quote from: dsfire on December 06, 2009, 09:48:03 PM
How does Buycks end up in the positive with offensive and defensive ratings below the team average?
He had a good game against Grambling and then he's been both wildly inconsistent and mostly mediocre net-points wise. His offensive and defensive ratings have a lot of variance. Besides, at +2 points positive, that's basically neutral.
edit: That's funny. I made the same mistake mixing up team offensive efficiency and player offensive ratings that I just talked about earlier in the thread. The expanded answer is that team offensive points per possession (or allowed) are not the same as individual player offensive/defensive ratings. That, plus the previous comment.
Highly suspicious of any defensive measurement in basketball stats besides the basic initial encounter measurements.
If you let the guy get penetration which causes the opening before the opening you don't mark against defender, etc.
Myriad of situations where defensive stats are rendered junk.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 06, 2009, 09:25:09 PM
Calculations on usage, offensive and defensive ratings, and Net points added for the season so far. The data is sorted from highest to lowest by Net Points Added.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/09-10IndividualStats-1.png)
So, I get his playing time has been limited but based on his offensive and defensive numbers, why doesn't EWilliams deserve
some game time compared to some of the others? Buzz's doghouse?