Five Charts That Show Why Marquette Should be Better (But Isn't Yet)
Source: Five Charts That Show Why Marquette Should be Better (But Isn't Yet) (http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2014/01/five-charts-that-show-why-marquette.html)
First things first, these charts are using the Net Points stat, which is a measurement that looks at the offensive and defensive contributions of each player and then assigns value. For example, if Marquette wins by ten points, the stat attempts to assign credit for the win to the members of the team based on how many min they play and their offensive and defensive ratings. There are some limitations in the stat, mostly on the defensive end, because it's all based on box score stats. If a defensive contribution does not show up on the box score, it won't get captured. However, I have come back to using the stat because it generally passes the red-faced test, and I like the story it helps paint over a season. For example, the best collection of stats was Jae Crowder's senior year.
Chart #1 - Marquette is getting quality contributions this year
This chart shows the comparison of the top fifteen Net Points contributions through this mid-point of the year over the past three seasons. It's not as top heavy as previous years, but there are still plenty of quality contributions on the floor.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/cumnetpointsathalf-way.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/cumnetpointsathalf-way.png.html)
Chart #2 - Burton (#BANE) is contributing at the highest level over the past three years
Here's a similar comparison for only freshmen over the past three years. Most freshmen are net-neutral or negative. Even #FreeSteveTaylor was only slightly net-positive at this point. Mayo had a strong start but had already started to fade. Bane is contributing at the highest level seen and showing no signs of slowing down
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/TopFroshPerformances.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/TopFroshPerformances.png.html)
Chart #3 - There is a quality shooting guard on the roster
Here's a similar comparison of Vander from last year with Todd from this year. Todd is actually contributing at a higher overall trend than Vander did last year. Of course, if you recall all the caveats from the discussion on Net Points, the defensive contributions are not properly represented. However, there is no denying that Mayo can be very good on the court and may be close enough to Blue as a replacement.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/VandervsMayo.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/VandervsMayo.png.html)
Chart #4 - The two worst Net Points contributors are getting the most minutes
Yesterday I tweeted a version of this chart that said it was the entire season in a single chart. This shows the cumulative net points for each player against how many MPG they are receiving. The two worst net point contributors (our starting back court circled in red) are getting the most minutes. The number three and number four best contributors (circled in green) rank fifth and ninth, respectively, in terms of minutes per game.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/MPGvsNetpoints.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/MPGvsNetpoints.png.html)
Chart #5 - If the back court is the issue, there isn't a better PG option on the team
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/PGoptions.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/PGoptions.png.html)
There's no question that the stats aren't particularly kind to Derrick Wilson. Let me first say three things. #1 - I think he's great and I'm rooting for him all the way. #2 - I don't think his defensive contributions show up well in these stats so he is under-rated. #3 - At least he has had six net-positive games. Unfortunately, the other PG option on the team is yet to be net-positive in any contribution, and has had several games where Buzz didn't yet trust him on the court.
Conclusion
There are two ways you can look at this. If you are a pessimist, you can regard Buzz as being obstinate in playing D. Wilson and Thomas over any of the freshmen or Mayo. However, if you're an optimist, you can say that Buzz was teaching some early season lessons and will rely more heavily on Burton and Mayo going forward. You can look at the potential improvement of the offense and see a team that might be better than it shows right now.
Okay... If wilson and dawson can even be compared... a 22 year old Jr to a 18 year old freshmen.. we have a problem in the back court...
measuring dawson's stats based on spot minutes hold no weight....
not saying he should be starting but you cant compare someone who plays 30+ Min to someone who plays 5 minutes or less broken up into 1 minute spurts... Theres nobody in the world who can sit watch a game for 20-25 min then get called in for 1:05 min thats gonna change the world... his time will come its just not now..
Wilson should continue to develop and become a better player and marquette will go as far as he takes them..
Go Warriors
Dawson vs Wilson
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/DawsonvsWilson.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/DawsonvsWilson.png.html)
I presented the info the way I did because on a strict "net points" view, Dawson shows better. However, that's a red herring. Dawson is worse offensively and defensively. He hasn't shown any indication he really deserves more PT than Wilson. For better or worse (until our season is officially toast), Wilson is our PG.
The SG story is a different matter...
Any thoughts on usage rate and efficiency for Todd vs Vander?
The numbers clearly dictate Todd should be starting. The numbers don't factor in intangibles like trust from the coach, team leadership, etc. IMO, start Jake and Todd.
A few comments - Net points already takes usage into account. For example, a player that comes in and hits 1-1 on a three in five minutes of play has an awesome ORtg but a miniscule usage and a tiny net points.
Also, DRtg is based on the team DRtg and then adjusted up or down. Last year's team wasn't great defensively, so take that with a grain of salt.
Last, the stats were never that kind to Vander. Maybe if the stats were nicer to him he'd have made the league.
Vander Vs Mayo. Vander took way more shots but wasn't as efficient.
Blue, Vander
18.4% Usage
106.7 ORtg
98.1 DRtg
63.0 Net Points
full season
Mayo, Todd
10.1% Usage
114.1 ORtg
92.9 DRtg
27.6 Net Points
partial season
Quote from: Nevada233 on January 14, 2014, 11:31:32 AM
Okay... If wilson and dawson can even be compared... a 22 year old Jr to a 18 year old freshmen.. we have a problem in the back court...
measuring dawson's stats based on spot minutes hold no weight....
not saying he should be starting but you cant compare someone who plays 30+ Min to someone who plays 5 minutes or less broken up into 1 minute spurts... Theres nobody in the world who can sit watch a game for 20-25 min then get called in for 1:05 min thats gonna change the world... his time will come its just not now..
Wilson should continue to develop and become a better player and marquette will go as far as he takes them..
Go Warriors
Just curious... (let me preface by saying that I believe Dawson is a better scorer than Derrick), is there any evidence that will convince you Dawson should not be getting more minutes than he is currently getting? Sugar's evidence is about the best and deepest you'll get to comparing the two players.
Great stuff! I may be missing something, but is not Todd Mayo the answer at point guard?
Quote from: UticaBusBarn on January 14, 2014, 12:13:12 PM
Great stuff! I may be missing something, but is not Todd Mayo the answer at point guard?
Don't see how, his handle is sloppy and the key to Mayo's resurgence has been his focus on efficiency. Make him play the 1 and I think he has the same issue he mentioned with Jamil about thinking too much and not just playing.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 14, 2014, 12:11:51 PM
Just curious... (let me preface by saying that I believe Dawson is a better scorer than Derrick), is there any evidence that will convince you Dawson should not be getting more minutes than he is currently getting? Sugar's evidence is about the best and deepest you'll get to comparing the two players.
I can't speak to the technicalities of Sugar's analysis - but if you have one guy who's cumulative Net Average is -23.8, and the other's is -9.0 - seems a case could be made.
Still see zero downside to giving Dawson 20 minutes a game.
Quote from: Ners on January 14, 2014, 12:52:10 PM
I can't speak to the technicalities of Sugar's analysis - but if you have one guy who's cumulative Net Average is -23.8, and the other's is -9.0 - seems a case could be made.
Still see zero downside to giving Dawson 20 minutes a game.
That's not the conclusion that Sugar came to however.
Quote from: Ners on January 14, 2014, 12:52:10 PM
I can't speak to the technicalities of Sugar's analysis - but if you have one guy who's cumulative Net Average is -23.8, and the other's is -9.0 - seems a case could be made.
Still see zero downside to giving Dawson 20 minutes a game.
Again, Dawson has had zero games where his impact on the game has been positive. Zero. Not once has Dawson's contribution made the team better.
His net impact is negative nine in 1/5th the usage. Give Dawson the same usage as DWil and he's twice as bad.
A player's efficiency goes down with increased usage and minutes. If Dawson is already bad offensively, he'll get worse with more minutes.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 14, 2014, 12:59:01 PM
Again, Dawson has had zero games where his impact on the game has been positive. Zero. Not once has Dawson's contribution made the team better.
His net impact is negative nine in 1/5th the usage. Give Dawson the same usage as DWil and he's twice as bad.
A player's efficiency goes down with increased usage and minutes. If Dawson is already bad offensively, he'll get worse with more minutes.
i will assume that being one of this board's experts, you know what you're talking about. however, that has not been the message purported around here.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 14, 2014, 12:11:51 PM
Just curious... (let me preface by saying that I believe Dawson is a better scorer than Derrick), is there any evidence that will convince you Dawson should not be getting more minutes than he is currently getting? Sugar's evidence is about the best and deepest you'll get to comparing the two players.
First of all Dawson has 5 DNP's, which I am pretty sure came against the better teams so his numbers are somewhat skewed to the positive, because he played more when it did not matter. Second of all Dawson playing more gives Wilson some rest and a rested player should play better. I believe Wilson should start, but Dawson should play more than he has. Perhaps 28 minutes for Wilson and 12 for Dawson.
Quote from: jesmu84 on January 14, 2014, 01:05:35 PM
i will assume that being one of this board's experts, you know what you're talking about. however, that has not been the message purported around here.
I am far from an expert. I don't know very much about basketball at all.
However, yes, there is an inverse relationship between usage and efficiency. This is logical. Give a player a lot more shots or opportunities to handle the ball and they will not be as efficient with them.
For example - last year Jamil had an ORtg of 110 on 21% possessions. This year he has an ORtg of 100 on 26% possessions. In other words, last year he had the ball about one out of every five times. This year one out of every four times.
Generally what happens with players is that YoY either their possessions go up and their ORtg stays constant, or their ORtg stays constant and their possessions go up. If you are lucky, you get both.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 14, 2014, 01:14:17 PM
I am far from an expert. I don't know very much about basketball at all.
However, yes, there is an inverse relationship between usage and efficiency. This is logical. Give a player a lot more shots or opportunities to handle the ball and they will not be as efficient with them.
For example - last year Jamil had an ORtg of 110 on 21% possessions. This year he has an ORtg of 100 on 26% possessions. In other words, last year he had the ball about one out of every five times. This year one out of every four times.
Generally what happens with players is that YoY either their possessions go up and their ORtg stays constant, or their ORtg stays constant and their possessions go up. If you are lucky, you get both.
thanks.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 14, 2014, 11:51:52 AM
Dawson vs Wilson
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/DawsonvsWilson.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/DawsonvsWilson.png.html)
I presented the info the way I did because on a strict "net points" view, Dawson shows better. However, that's a red herring. Dawson is worse offensively and defensively. He hasn't shown any indication he really deserves more PT than Wilson. For better or worse (until our season is officially toast), Wilson is our PG.
The SG story is a different matter...
But wait...but wait...how can Derrick have a negative rating, Buzz said he is a game changer? Oh I get it now, that is the game change, a negative impact.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 14, 2014, 01:26:17 PM
But wait...but wait...how can Derrick have a negative rating, Buzz said he is a game changer? Oh I get it now, that is the game change, a negative impact.
lol... im the furthest from a number cruncher... but +1
I still wonder about the inability of these stats to measure many important intangibles such as leadership, drive, ballhandling ability, tenacity, positional defense, etc. Even if we take these stats as significant, however, they create quite a conundrum for many Scoopers.
Some of the same folks who will want to use these charts to justify Todd being better than Vander will want to dismiss these charts to justify benching Derrick in favor of Dawson.
Fun with numbers!
Quote from: willie warrior on January 14, 2014, 01:26:17 PM
But wait...but wait...how can Derrick have a negative rating, Buzz said he is a game changer? Oh I get it now, that is the game change, a negative impact.
Willie - You tell your wife she's beautiful but is she really BEAUTIFUL or are you telling her that to make her feel better. Or maybe she IS beautiful compared to what you feel are (were) your other "options".
Quote from: NotAnAlum on January 14, 2014, 04:16:59 PM
Willie - You tell your wife she's beautiful but is she really BEAUTIFUL or are you telling her that to make her feel better. Or maybe she IS beautiful compared to what you feel are (were) your other "options".
I get it, according to Buzzo, Derrick is beautiful, the most beautiful he has ever coached. No other options.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 14, 2014, 04:42:09 PM
I get it, according to Buzzo, Derrick is beautiful, the most beautiful he has ever coached. No other options.
Who's Buzzo?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 14, 2014, 12:59:01 PM
A player's efficiency goes down with increased usage and minutes. If Dawson is already bad offensively, he'll get worse with more minutes.
That claim loses its relevance when talking about a guy who so rarely plays, IMHO.
18% usage guy playing 22 min a night... & you want 23% & 30 min? Yup, absolutely. But o don't think every player "gets worse" every second they play after the first 5 seconds.
Thank you for your effort. Very interesting and informative.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 14, 2014, 12:59:01 PM
Again, Dawson has had zero games where his impact on the game has been positive. Zero. Not once has Dawson's contribution made the team better.
His net impact is negative nine in 1/5th the usage. Give Dawson the same usage as DWil and he's twice as bad.
A player's efficiency goes down with increased usage and minutes. If Dawson is already bad offensively, he'll get worse with more minutes.
and remember, figures don't lie, but liars do figure! Huh? Remember Penn Central?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 14, 2014, 12:59:01 PM
Again, Dawson has had zero games where his impact on the game has been positive. Zero. Not once has Dawson's contribution made the team better.
His net impact is negative nine in 1/5th the usage. Give Dawson the same usage as DWil and he's twice as bad.
A player's efficiency goes down with increased usage and minutes. If Dawson is already bad offensively, he'll get worse with more minutes.
How do you reconcile the large difference in JJJ's performance in games he's gotten good minutes, as opposed to fewer?
Having played the game extensively, I can tell you it is hard to achieve much production if you get 2-3 minute stints of action - that drives efficiency down. You want to get a fair read on a player, you need to let him run 6-8 minute stretches. Getting yanked in and out of the lineup is the worst. In fact, you'll notice Juan Anderson has had far and away the worst +/- the last few games, and he is consistenly getting yanked in and out of the lineup. It sucks...and leads to sucky performance.
Quote from: Ners on January 14, 2014, 08:07:26 PM
How do you reconcile the large difference in JJJ's performance in games he's gotten good minutes, as opposed to fewer?
Having played the game extensively, I can tell you it is hard to achieve much production if you get 2-3 minute stints of action - that drives efficiency down. You want to get a fair read on a player, you need to let him run 6-8 minute stretches. Getting yanked in and out of the lineup is the worst. In fact, you'll notice Juan Anderson has had far and away the worst +/- the last few games, and he is consistenly getting yanked in and out of the lineup. It sucks...and leads to sucky performance.
He has had two big scoring games against lesser competition. He really has not done much against good teams. I think Burton has scored in every game and early on JJJ was playing more than Burton.
Quote from: Jay Bee on January 14, 2014, 05:47:54 PM
That claim loses its relevance when talking about a guy who so rarely plays, IMHO.
18% usage guy playing 22 min a night... & you want 23% & 30 min? Yup, absolutely. But o don't think every player "gets worse" every second they play after the first 5 seconds.
Fair enough. In principle I agree with you.
However, there's no data I've seen about rarely used players and an increase of minutes.
Everyone, continue to support whatever position you already believe regarding Dawson!
Quote from: Ners on January 14, 2014, 08:07:26 PM
How do you reconcile the large difference in JJJ's performance in games he's gotten good minutes, as opposed to fewer?
Having played the game extensively, I can tell you it is hard to achieve much production if you get 2-3 minute stints of action - that drives efficiency down. You want to get a fair read on a player, you need to let him run 6-8 minute stretches. Getting yanked in and out of the lineup is the worst. In fact, you'll notice Juan Anderson has had far and away the worst +/- the last few games, and he is consistenly getting yanked in and out of the lineup. It sucks...and leads to sucky performance.
Begs the question - did he suck because he was yanked after short stints or was he yanked after short stints because he sucked? A coach can lose his job hoping that 3 minute stints of poor play from guys he already doesn't trust turn into something better with more time. Solution? Be ready to go whenever called. If you're arguing that a coach shouldn't put a guy into a game unless he'll stick with him for at least 6-8 minutes I think that's crazy.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 15, 2014, 08:20:53 AM
Fair enough. In principle I agree with you.
However, there's no data I've seen about rarely used players and an increase of minutes.
Everyone, continue to support whatever position you already believe regarding Dawson!
Agreed. There has to be a tipping point. In theory, a guy who plays 30secs at a time will probably not be very comfortable/good.
However, what is the magic number before we can start to say that (insert player) is or isn't that good? 4min? 10min? 20min?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 15, 2014, 09:04:16 AM
Begs the question - did he suck because he was yanked after short stints or was he yanked after short stints because he sucked? A coach can lose his job hoping that 3 minute stints of poor play from guys he already doesn't trust turn into something better with more time. Solution? Be ready to go whenever called. If you're arguing that a coach shouldn't put a guy into a game unless he'll stick with him for at least 6-8 minutes I think that's crazy.
I wouldn't say you put ALL players into a game for 6-8 minutes - there are a few guys who are simply high energy guys designed to give a breather to your clear cut, more talented starter. I did watch the Iowa State vs Kansas game the other night and found in interesting to see Hoiberg ride lineups with little substitution for 6-10 minutes - including a stretch where Matt Thomas got in the game and launched 3, quick three point shots, and missed them all - and he continued to play on. That "leash length" helps with a young player, who is a high potential player. Gotta see them through their growing pains. Now, a veteran, say a Junior, who is getting 30+ minutes a game and producing very little - that is the kind of player, you can use for short stints of action for breathers and energy.
JJJ, Deonte and Dawson have all been given extended times to play this year and haven't been yanked as soon as they have made mistakes. I'm really not sure that Buzz has a shorter leash than many other coaches do in that regard.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on January 15, 2014, 10:42:08 AM
JJJ, Deonte and Dawson have all been given extended times to play this year and haven't been yanked as soon as they have made mistakes. I'm really not sure that Buzz has a shorter leash than many other coaches do in that regard.
JJJ and Dawson's minutes have been sporadic for the most part. It appears Buzz has a shorter leash with some players than others...or it could just be his crazy rotations. Either way it must be hard for someone who was the star of their high school and played big minutes to come in for 2 minutes and produce. These 2 minute intervals would ideally be to spell a star PG, not a freshman trying to develop.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on January 15, 2014, 10:42:08 AM
JJJ, Deonte and Dawson have all been given extended times to play this year and haven't been yanked as soon as they have made mistakes. I'm really not sure that Buzz has a shorter leash than many other coaches do in that regard.
I feel Burton has gotten decent stretches, but he has been highly productive in those minutes. Surprises me the leash is so short though for the freshman, when we have long stretches of ineffective play by our vets...and vets who for the most part have rarely showed themselves to be productive players in their 2-3 years at MU.
JJJ has gotten a few games of decent stretches of minutes - yet it almost seems if he doesn't produce in the first 2-3 minutes, he's yanked...which causes guys to press. Felt Todd Mayo played the same way last year.
Dawson - get ready for this - no comment! ;D