(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Wisconsin.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Wisconsin.png.html)
Here's how Net Points assigns credit/blame on a per-player basis
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/UWbreakdown.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/UWbreakdown.png.html)
Hoo Boy. Don't know what all goes into the negative points formula, but it sure looks like our Guard/Switchable play shows great opportunity for improvement. Always accenting the glass half full concept.
Thanks for the analysis Sugar - any way to get a composite rating for the year for the guys? Am curious if the aggregate total of all games has Derrick and Jake at the bottom too?
Thank you for your regular contribution of facts. An objective perspective is always refreshing and helpful for putting matters in their correct perspective.
The chart you have provided sort of knocks the pins out from underneath the "we need bigs" chant/argument/fixation. The "bigs" are doing great.
However, the chart also underscores what the late Coach Abe Lemons believed to be true and would say to anyone who would listen. "If you ain't got guards, you ain't got sh*t."
This long time MU fan believes Coach Lemons above quoted belief summarizes what the objective of recruiting should be, while also highlighting the weakness of the 2012-13 Warriors.
How Coach Williams fixes this weakness is going to determine the degree of success this year.
As a post script, there is no doubt in this writer's mind that Coach Williams will, indeed, change/fix/adjust the guard situation this year, and continue to heavily recruit guards.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 09, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Wisconsin.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Wisconsin.png.html)
Here's how Net Points assigns credit/blame on a per-player basis
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/UWbreakdown.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/UWbreakdown.png.html)
Thanks, Sugar. Numbers match the eye test on this one. One question - we lost by 6 and the +- adds up to -8.4. What am I missing?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 09, 2013, 02:41:29 PM
Thanks, Sugar. Numbers match the eye test on this one. One question - we lost by 6 and the +- adds up to -8.4. What am I missing?
Agree, thanks for the info.
One other question.
How do you define possession? How is it possible that we had 3 more possessions in the first half, for example? Since we get the ball, then they get the ball, etc.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 09, 2013, 09:41:02 AM
Hoo Boy. Don't know what all goes into the negative points formula, but it sure looks like our Guard/Switchable play shows great opportunity for improvement. Always accenting the glass half full concept.
Yeah, our "stud" play was awesome while our guard play sucked. Can you believe people have been saying we recruit too many guards and not enough bigs?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 09, 2013, 02:41:29 PM
Thanks, Sugar. Numbers match the eye test on this one. One question - we lost by 6 and the +- adds up to -8.4. What am I missing?
Net points are just an approximation. It's really an average of two ways of assigning value, so they get /roughly/ right but not exact.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 09, 2013, 02:46:21 PM
One other question.
How do you define possession? How is it possible that we had 3 more possessions in the first half, for example? Since we get the ball, then they get the ball, etc.
It's not a pure possession in the basketball sense. The formula is FGA + Turnovers - Offensive Rebounds + (.475 * FTA). I think that UW lists fewer possessions because they have offensive rebounds.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 09, 2013, 03:27:11 PM
Net points are just an approximation. It's really an average of two ways of assigning value, so they get /roughly/ right but not exact.
Thanks
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 09, 2013, 03:27:11 PM
Net points are just an approximation. It's really an average of two ways of assigning value, so they get /roughly/ right but not exact.
It's not a pure possession in the basketball sense. The formula is FGA + Turnovers - Offensive Rebounds + (.475 * FTA). I think that UW lists fewer possessions because they have offensive rebounds.
For that reason some people will take the average of those two numbers and use that as a game number of possessions.
Luckily the game was close to the end or else there would be a skew for putting in bench guys late in a game in a blowout, right?
I just want to point out that I thought MU really played some stretches of great defense, especially in the 2nd half. Even though the second half UW offensive efficiency is high, that was skewed by MU fouling the last six possessions to stop the clock. UW was 10-11 on free throws in the last six possessions over the final 52 seconds.
I wonder if Buzz has a similar chart? After all he loves numbers. This also meets the eye test.
Quote from: THRILLHO on December 09, 2013, 03:55:05 PM
For that reason some people will take the average of those two numbers and use that as a game number of possessions.
Yeah, that's the way Pomeroy does it. I think that's the way most people do it.
Maybe I should start doing my stats that way.
Here is a snapshot on a per-player basis for the season so far.
FWIW - I think that the defensive rating for DWil and Thomas is not entirely accurate. Their defense does not get enough credit because they don't collect box score stats (steals, DRs, blocks). Having said that, I do like using these charts because they generally pass the red-faced test.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Season121013.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Season121013.png.html)
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 10, 2013, 08:44:02 AM
Here is a snapshot on a per-player basis for the season so far.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Season121013.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Season121013.png.html)
So if you multiply Dawson's -6 by 5.5 to give him Derrick's usage he's a -33.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 10, 2013, 08:50:27 AM
So if you multiply Dawson's -6 by 5.5 to give him Derrick's usage he's a -33.
Is that true/a valid extrapolation?
It couldnt possibly be, because I'm sure I've read here that Dawson couldn't possibly be any worse.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 10, 2013, 08:50:27 AM
So if you multiply Dawson's -6 by 5.5 to give him Derrick's usage he's a -33.
Two things
#1 - That's not entirely accurate. Generally, if you increase a player's usage they get worse, at least offensively. Dawson would probably be worse than a -33.
#2 - It's an interesting thought experiment, however. Here is a re-ranking with all of the players normalized for usage. Again, it's just something interesting and that's about it.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Season121013v2.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Season121013v2.png.html)
Help me understand something that sticks out at me like a sore thumb from this.
Most observers on the board, including me, think Deonte has a lot of work to do to improve on the defenisve end.
Yet, according to this chart, he's got the lowest (aka best) defensive rating.
Am I interpreting correctly and if so, how does that make any sense? Is it because he's doing some things defensively that appear in the stat line (steals, blocks, etc.) while his obvious shortcomings are not captured in the analysis?
We need to recruit better bigs!!!!
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 10, 2013, 08:59:15 AM
Two things
#1 - That's not entirely accurate. Generally, if you increase a player's usage they get worse, at least offensively. Dawson would probably be worse than a -33.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Season121013v2.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Season121013v2.png.html)
Seems logical. Thanks.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 10, 2013, 09:48:48 AM
Help me understand something that sticks out at me like a sore thumb from this.
Most observers on the board, including me, think Deonte has a lot of work to do to improve on the defenisve end.
Yet, according to this chart, he's got the lowest (aka best) defensive rating.
Am I interpreting correctly and if so, how does that make any sense? Is it because he's doing some things defensively that appear in the stat line (steals, blocks, etc.) while his obvious shortcomings are not captured in the analysis?
The flaws of defensive rating are exactly as you lay out. It is based off of the team defensive rating and then adjusted up or down based on defensive box score statistics. Defensive characteristics such as positioning, denying your man the ball, or guarding a shot that is missed are obviously important but not captured in the box score. On the other hand, Burton leads the team in steals and he's #3 in blocks. Those matter too.
To repeat, these stats have flaws. It's why I post them on MUScoop and not on Cracked Sidewalks. However, I think that the Net Points approach generally passes the red-faced test.
Well.....think this research is pretty clear cut as to what challenges this team faces. Also, illustrates the idea of the team being better off without Todd Mayo is about as ridiculous as it gets - especially given the other backcourt challenges we face.
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2013, 10:43:08 AM
Well.....think this research is pretty clear cut as to what challenges this team faces. Also, illustrates the idea of the team being better off without Todd Mayo is about as ridiculous as it gets - especially given the other backcourt challenges we face.
I noticed you failed to address the normalized starts showing Dawson worse than derrick...
Quote from: jesmu84 on December 10, 2013, 10:57:40 AM
I noticed you failed to address the normalized starts showing Dawson worse than derrick...
I'm not going to put a ton of stock into the statistical relevance of a guy who has gotten 53 minutes in 9 games. We'll see how it plays out. I made a vow to not comment on Derrick anymore, so I'm not going to, beyond saying that Sugar's stats/analytics bear out that things aren't "good" at that position, or the 2 guard either - which is all many of us have been arguing.
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2013, 11:38:04 AM
I'm not going to put a ton of stock into the statistical relevance of a guy who has gotten 53 minutes in 9 games.
Wouldn't this actually be trying to "normalize" his two minutes on Saturday rather than all 53 minutes on the season? You can get a bit of a feel from the 53, absurd to try to draw anything from two.
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2013, 11:38:04 AM
I'm not going to put a ton of stock into the statistical relevance of a guy who has gotten 53 minutes in 9 games.
Yet that's enough time for you to decide that he should be playing over Wilson.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 10, 2013, 10:35:47 AM
The flaws of defensive rating are exactly as you lay out. It is based off of the team defensive rating and then adjusted up or down based on defensive box score statistics. Defensive characteristics such as positioning, denying your man the ball, or guarding a shot that is missed are obviously important but not captured in the box score. On the other hand, Burton leads the team in steals and he's #3 in blocks. Those matter too.
To repeat, these stats have flaws. It's why I post them on MUScoop and not on Cracked Sidewalks. However, I think that the Net Points approach generally passes the red-faced test.
Thank you Mr. Sugar for all the work you put into this. You say all the stats have flaws--just like all the players do--so I guess one can safely say one can pretty much make what they want out of the stats. It probably still comes down to the "eye" test.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 10, 2013, 08:44:02 AM
Here is a snapshot on a per-player basis for the season so far.
FWIW - I think that the defensive rating for DWil and Thomas is not entirely accurate. Their defense does not get enough credit because they don't collect box score stats (steals, DRs, blocks). Having said that, I do like using these charts because they generally pass the red-faced test.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Season121013.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Season121013.png.html)
Just for example/explanatory purposes, in lay man's terms, exactly what does De. Wilson's -17.6 mean?
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2013, 11:38:04 AM
I'm not going to put a ton of stock into the statistical relevance of a guy who has gotten 53 minutes in 9 games. We'll see how it plays out. I made a vow to not comment on Derrick anymore, so I'm not going to, beyond saying that Sugar's stats/analytics bear out that things aren't "good" at that position, or the 2 guard either - which is all many of us have been arguing.
I actually agree with you!
But, I think that's the entire point of the "John Dawson debate".
We (the fans) haven't seen enough of him to know what he is. Buzz sees him everyday and knows what Dawson is. If Dawson isn't playing, it's for a reason.
If we can all agree with that, then the debate really just becomes: "Why isn't Buzz playing John Dawson?"
I don't think Buzz Williams plays John Dawson because ___________________. (fill in the reason)
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2013, 11:38:04 AM
I made a vow to not comment on Derrick anymore, so I'm not going to, beyond saying that Sugar's stats/analytics bear out that things aren't "good" at that position, or the 2 guard either - which is all many of us have been arguing.
If that was all you were arguing they're wouldn't have been much of an argument.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on December 10, 2013, 11:56:46 AM
Yet that's enough time for you to decide that he should be playing over Wilson.
As I said, I don't want to comment any further on Derrick. All I can say is look at the season numbers and the sample size is quite relevant - and it is going to be hard for any team to be very successful if their starting PG getting 31+ minutes per game ranks last on the team in efficiency/effectiveness. I don't see what is to be lost/how much worse it could get by trying Dawson for extended run.....that is all...
Quote from: Ners on December 10, 2013, 01:46:39 PM
As I said, I don't want to comment any further on Derrick. All I can say is look at the season numbers and the sample size is quite relevant - and it is going to be hard for any team to be very successful if their starting PG getting 31+ minutes per game ranks last on the team in efficiency/effectiveness. I don't see what is to be lost/how much worse it could get by trying Dawson for extended run.....that is all...
Well, maybe we could be 4-5 with a loss to GW or 3-6 with a loss to Southern, too.
God those are brutal numbers. Checking that with the box score it seems surprising the margin was only 6.