ORtg team average 105.6 (170th of 351)
Gardner 127.4, Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9
This number is skewed because of Davante Gardner being a statistical outlier compared to the rest of his team offensively. Here's the breakdown if you take Gardner out of this stat. Our team ORtg would drop to 98.1.
Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9
DRtg team average 100.2 (94th of 351)
Burton 93.5, Anderson 93.8, Taylor 99.4, J Wilson 101.1, Mayo 102.4, Otule 102.6, D Wilson 102.9, Gardner 103.6, Johnson 104.8, Flood 105.3, Dawson 105.4, Thomas 105.9
Here's a little perspective. If you take our best five ORtg players regardless of position (Gardner, Thomas, Johnson, Otule, Mayo) and they played an entire 40 minutes together all season they'd average 77.8 pts/game and give up 71.2 pts/game a +6.1 differential.
If you take our five best DRtg players regardless of position (Burton, Anderson, Taylor, J Wilson, Mayo) and they played an entire 40 minutes together all season they'd average 67.7 points/game and give up 67.2 points/game a +0.5 differential.
Our best statistical offensive line up would put up over 10 points more a game and give up 4 points more a game than our best statistical defensive line up.
Food for thought.
With these advanced metrics, why even play the game?
Quote from: Utile et Dulce on March 09, 2014, 02:34:59 PM
With these advanced metrics, why even play the game?
Some stats are predictive while others are reactive.
While Win Shares, PER (player efficiency rating) and all your typical stats are valuable, they are not predictive. They are a measurement of what has occured.
ORtg and DRtg are predictive stats when a large enough sample size is taken into account. The reason you still play the games is obvious and hopefully you just forgot to use the proper sarcasm color in your post.
There are adjusted ORtg and DRtg measurements and they need to be used when comparing players from different teams as those stats take into consideration the differences in quality of opponents' offensive and defensive abilities, but when simply comparing players on the same team they are unnecessary.
As always Matty, you have provided some very sound and insightful data.
A lot of folks will try and shoot holes in it as they argue their subjective bias, but your data supports what a lot of other folks having been saying on this board all year long - and, it has, indeed, been a long year
The data you have presented also underscores (pun intended) Coach Williams philosophy and the resulting outcome this past year:)
Anyway, thank you.
Quote from: UticaBusBarn on March 09, 2014, 03:12:42 PM
As always Matty, you have provided some very sound and insightful data.
A lot of folks will try and shoot holes in it as they argue their subjective bias, but your data supports what a lot of other folks having been saying on this board all year long - and, it has, indeed, been a long year
The data you have presented also underscores (pun intended) Coach Williams philosophy and the resulting outcome this past year:)
Anyway, thank you.
This may be what you are saying, but the stats say our best players by positions are:
PG Derrick Wilson
SG Jake Thomas
SF J. Wilson (Mayo/Johnson if you go a 3 G lineup)
PF Gardner
C Otule
or a lineup of
D. Wilson
J. Thomas
Mayo
J. Wilson
Gardner/Otule
Which is exactly the two lineups Buzz has used the vast majority of minutes this season. For the record the DRtg is not remotely predictive as it focuses too heavily on individual stats and D is a team effort. For instance, if you asked anyone at MU who their 3 best defenders are they wouldn't be Burton/Anderson/Taylor. In fact if you asked Taylor if he was one of the best 3 defenders he would probably laugh at you.
Quote from: forgetful on March 09, 2014, 03:30:09 PM
This may be what you are saying, but the stats say our best players by positions are:
PG Derrick Wilson
SG Jake Thomas
SF J. Wilson (Mayo/Johnson if you go a 3 G lineup)
PF Gardner
C Otule
or a lineup of
D. Wilson
J. Thomas
Mayo
J. Wilson
Gardner/Otule
Which is exactly the two lineups Buzz has used the vast majority of minutes this season. For the record the DRtg is not remotely predictive as it focuses too heavily on individual stats and D is a team effort. For instance, if you asked anyone at MU who their 3 best defenders are they wouldn't be Burton/Anderson/Taylor. In fact if you asked Taylor if he was one of the best 3 defenders he would probably laugh at you.
Forgetful, you couldn't be more wrong about DRtg.
I doesn't take anything into consideration except points scored over 100 possessions. Blocks, steals, defensive rebounds, charges taken or any other individual defensive stat is not used in the calculation.
Deonte Burton when on the court allowed 93.3 opponent points per 100 defensive possessions (with any other combination of players playing with him). That is the only determining factor. Opposing team's points when he's on the floor divided by a static measurement (possessions).
Our overall best line up by position based on mashing up the offense/defense ratings would look like this.
PG - Wilson
SG - Mayo
SF - Burton
PF - Wilson
C - Gardner
Thomas and Otule would see significant minutes as well
I think the discussion of Wilson as our starting PG over Dawson should only be allowed if we're asking how Buzz could so incorrectly guage his ability level and thought he could be counted on to win games for the team this year from that position. He is statistically better than Dawson at this point.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 02:17:17 PM
ORtg team average 105.6 (170th of 351)
Gardner 127.4, Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9
This number is skewed because of Davante Gardner being a statistical outlier compared to the rest of his team offensively. Here's the breakdown if you take Gardner out of this stat. Our team ORtg would drop to 98.1.
Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9
DRtg team average 100.2 (94th of 351)
Burton 93.5, Anderson 93.8, Taylor 99.4, J Wilson 101.1, Mayo 102.4, Otule 102.6, D Wilson 102.9, Gardner 103.6, Johnson 104.8, Flood 105.3, Dawson 105.4, Thomas 105.9
Here's a little perspective. If you take our best five ORtg players regardless of position (Gardner, Thomas, Johnson, Otule, Mayo) and they played an entire 40 minutes together all season they'd average 77.8 pts/game and give up 71.2 pts/game a +6.1 differential.
If you take our five best DRtg players regardless of position (Burton, Anderson, Taylor, J Wilson, Mayo) and they played an entire 40 minutes together all season they'd average 67.7 points/game and give up 67.2 points/game a +0.5 differential.
Our best statistical offensive line up would put up over 10 points more a game and give up 4 points more a game than our best statistical defensive line up.
Food for thought.
There are major problems with your analysis. Statistically unsound; too limited.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 09, 2014, 04:29:56 PM
There are major problems with your analysis. Statistically unsound; too limited.
It's not my analysis. It's right there for anyone to look at. It's 100% accurate based on every player on our team's playing time and points scored and allowed.
Please expound on why these stats are limited are what a more complete set of stats would consist of.
You can note that if you included other popular metrics such as PER (player efficiency ratings) and Win Shares the list would be eerily similar. I'll include those if you want so you would then have three measures calculated differently that tell the same story.
Is it limited simply because it is counter intuitive to your subjective opinions?
Great stuff Matty...question...where did you get the stats from? Pomroy throws out all games where a player doesn't even play 10 minutes regardless of what happens in calculating their ORating, as he deems 10 minutes of action statistically irrelevant...
Particularly telling..that in all of his years of analysis he too knows you can't draw conclusions from a player getting less than 10 minutes of action per game. Dawson failed to play more than 10 minutes in 20 of our 31 games...thereby his sample size per Pomroy is essentially 11 games...
Sports-Reference.com
They include every minute a player plays in their calculations. Right or wrong can be debatable but I think when multiple evaluation tools come up with a similar consensus it shows an overall trend. Pomroy is a great reference as well.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 03:35:42 PM
Forgetful, you couldn't be more wrong about DRtg.
I doesn't take anything into consideration except points scored over 100 possessions. Blocks, steals, defensive rebounds, charges taken or any other individual defensive stat is not used in the calculation.
Deonte Burton when on the court allowed 93.3 opponent points per 100 defensive possessions (with any other combination of players playing with him). That is the only determining factor. Opposing team's points when he's on the floor divided by a static measurement (possessions).
Sorry, I'm getting the different statistical measures mixed up. Regardless, no coach that has played us would say that Burton/Taylor are 2 of our 3 best defenders.
I really like Burton and think that he is getting it now, but he has overall been a poor defender this season.
The metric is flawed in college the sample size is not sufficiently large to negate inherent errors. For instance. Lets look at a four possession sample.
Player A gets a steal and block in two possessions, but just watches a player make two layups on the next two. He would average 4 points per 4 possession, but be really bad at defense.
Player B plays his man tough, denies him getting the ball for 30 seconds. Late in the shot clock the player gets the ball each of the 4 possessions and shoots up prayers. 2 of 4 go in. Same Drtg, much better defender.
In the NBA there are so many possessions that such statistical anomalies will average out.
Second aspect. In the NBA opponents are at least of similar quality, so 10 possessions against team A is roughly equivalent to 10 possessions against team B. In college, some players see most of their action against far lesser quality opponents, that allows them to increase their rtg. Again leading to statistical anomalies.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 09, 2014, 04:29:56 PM
There are major problems with your analysis. Statistically unsound; too limited.
I have to take another run at this rediculous post.
You do realize that this same set of statistics resulted in showing Jae Crowder, Davante Gardner, Darius Johnson-Odom, Jimmy Butler, and Lazar Hayward to be some of the best players on previous Marquette teams.
In fact the only player that didn't have great ORtg and DRtg numbers was Vander Blue, and his numbers were not poor. Again, no stat is completely perfect in either reflecting on or predicting 100% of a player's worth. There are always outliers. Joseph Fulce had the second highest ORtg on 2010-2011 team. Was he the 2nd best offensive player? Absolutely not, but it does show that the offense produced a lot of points as a unit when he was on the floor so he absolutely contributed to his team's offensive success.
Here's a list of the top 5 players each of the last five years based on player efficiency. Let's see if you can spot a correlation and also a difference with this year's list.
09-10: Hayward, Butler, Otule, Fulce, DJO
10-11: Crowder, Butler, Gardner, Fulce, DJO
11-12: Crowder, Gardner, DJO, Otule, J Wilson
12-13: Gardner, Taylor, J Wilson, Otule, Blue
13-14: Gardner, Burton, Mayo, J Wilson, Otule
Now here's your top five guys in minutes played the last five years
09-10: Butler, Hayward, Cubillan, DJO, Acker
10-11: Butler, DJO, Crowder, Buycks, Cadougan
11-12: Crowder, DJO, Cadougan, Blue, J Wilson
12-13: Blue, Cadougan, Lockett, J Wilson, Gardner
13-14: D Wilson, Thomas, J Wilson, Gardner, Mayo
Is it a coincidence that record is 17-14 and our two leading players in terms of minutes played are our 8th and 9th ranked efficiency players? Positions do dictate line ups to some extend, but you cannot find that on any previous team I just listed.
Quote from: forgetful on March 09, 2014, 05:41:28 PM
Sorry, I'm getting the different statistical measures mixed up. Regardless, no coach that has played us would say that Burton/Taylor are 2 of our 3 best defenders.
I really like Burton and think that he is getting it now, but he has overall been a poor defender this season.
The metric is flawed in college the sample size is not sufficiently large to negate inherent errors. For instance. Lets look at a four possession sample.
Player A gets a steal and block in two possessions, but just watches a player make two layups on the next two. He would average 4 points per 4 possession, but be really bad at defense.
Player B plays his man tough, denies him getting the ball for 30 seconds. Late in the shot clock the player gets the ball each of the 4 possessions and shoots up prayers. 2 of 4 go in. Same Drtg, much better defender.
In the NBA there are so many possessions that such statistical anomalies will average out.
Second aspect. In the NBA opponents are at least of similar quality, so 10 possessions against team A is roughly equivalent to 10 possessions against team B. In college, some players see most of their action against far lesser quality opponents, that allows them to increase their rtg. Again leading to statistical anomalies.
There's been approximately 2127 offensive and defensive possessions this season each. I think that's plenty of sample size.
The challenge is finding the right balance of players and position. For example, the stats that show Derrick is better than Dawson means that Buzz really has no choice but to play the 8th/9th best guy a lot of minutes. STjr's leg injury has impacted his minutes. I also have no problem bringing quality off of the bench. IMO, it should have been Derrick, Jake, Deonte, Jamil, and CO with Todd and Ox off of the bench but getting starter minutes. Simply because I like bringing offense off of the bench rather than defense. But it is hard to argue against Derrick, Todd, Deonte, Jamil, and Davante being effective.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 06:11:02 PM
I have to take another run at this rediculous post.
You do realize that this same set of statistics resulted in showing Jae Crowder, Davante Gardner, Darius Johnson-Odom, Jimmy Butler, and Lazar Hayward to be some of the best players on previous Marquette teams.
In fact the only player that didn't have great ORtg and DRtg numbers was Vander Blue, and his numbers were not poor. Again, no stat is completely perfect in either reflecting on or predicting 100% of a player's worth. There are always outliers. Joseph Fulce had the second highest ORtg on 2010-2011 team. Was he the 2nd best offensive player? Absolutely not, but it does show that the offense produced a lot of points as a unit when he was on the floor so he absolutely contributed to his team's offensive success.
Here's a list of the top 5 players each of the last five years based on player efficiency. Let's see if you can spot a correlation and also a difference with this year's list.
09-10: Hayward, Butler, Otule, Fulce, DJO
10-11: Crowder, Butler, Gardner, Fulce, DJO
11-12: Crowder, Gardner, DJO, Otule, J Wilson
12-13: Gardner, Taylor, J Wilson, Otule, Blue
13-14: Gardner, Burton, Mayo, J Wilson, Otule
Now here's your top five guys in minutes played the last five years
09-10: Butler, Hayward, Cubillan, DJO, Acker
10-11: Butler, DJO, Crowder, Buycks, Cadougan
11-12: Crowder, DJO, Cadougan, Blue, J Wilson
12-13: Blue, Cadougan, Lockett, J Wilson, Gardner
13-14: D Wilson, Thomas, J Wilson, Gardner, Mayo
Is it a coincidence that record is 17-14 and our two leading players in terms of minutes played are our 8th and 9th ranked efficiency players? Positions do dictate line ups to some extend, but you cannot find that on any previous team I just listed.
You do realize that in every year you list at least 2 players with the most minutes played are not amongst the 5 most efficient (same for this year). So all years including this year are the same in that regards. As Tower points out this year is an anomaly in that our best PG is a little worse compared to previous years.
Quote from: forgetful on March 09, 2014, 06:35:36 PM
You do realize that in every year you list at least 2 players with the most minutes played are not amongst the 5 most efficient (same for this year). So all years including this year are the same in that regards. As Tower points out this year is an anomaly in that our best PG is a little worse compared to previous years.
I'm well aware of that, but our leading minute guy always was within the top five as well.
I'm a realist. The loss of Duane Wilson to injury and Vander Blue's departure left Buzz playing two guys he probably didn't intend to play nearly as much. That's why I believe it's even more critical to handle the other positions appropriately.
In another topic I showed how not starting Davante Gardner for the three minutes of each half costs the team 2 points per game. I'm fine with the late game defense/offense substitutions. It's smart on many levels, but it's examples like this that have cost this team.
When you are forced as a coach to use Wilson/Dawson at PG for an entire 40 minutes it means you have to utilize your talent and the other four positions to it's max or you have a 17-14 regular season. For better or worse, we didn't capitalize on that this year. This year required Buzz to have great game management and unfortunately he was probably only average in that regard.
matty - you're not understanding the numbers well and taking leaps to draw conclusions that are wacky.
Bad claims that are not supported by facts.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 09, 2014, 06:50:43 PM
matty - you're not understanding the numbers well and taking leaps to draw conclusions that are wacky.
Bad claims that are not supported by facts.
Please elaborate. That's a pretty vague answer that so far has no statistical data you've presented to support it.
You now have posted twice on a topic titled 'Final regular season advanced stats' in which it's obvious you don't agree with the results yet you've provided not one bit of contradictory evidence, not one iota of analysis supporting your position and we're supposed to take your subjective viewpoint as a factual statement simply because you stated it.
I'm sorry for you that your confirmation bias is so strong you can be right in your own mind simply because you think it to be so. Tyrants and despots would love you.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 07:02:25 PM
Please elaborate. That's a pretty vague answer that so far has no statistical data you've presented to support it.
You now have posted twice on a topic titled 'Final regular season advanced stats' in which it's obvious you don't agree with the results yet you've provided not one bit of contradictory evidence, not one iota of analysis supporting your position and we're supposed to take your subjective viewpoint as a factual statement simply because you stated it.
I'm sorry for you that your confirmation bias is so strong you can be right in your own mind simply because you think it to be so. Tyrants and despots would love you.
*grabs popcorn*
Quote from: forgetful on March 09, 2014, 05:41:28 PM
Sorry, I'm getting the different statistical measures mixed up. Regardless, no coach that has played us would say that Burton/Taylor are 2 of our 3 best defenders.
I really like Burton and think that he is getting it now, but he has overall been a poor defender this season.
The metric is flawed in college the sample size is not sufficiently large to negate inherent errors. For instance. Lets look at a four possession sample.
Player A gets a steal and block in two possessions, but just watches a player make two layups on the next two. He would average 4 points per 4 possession, but be really bad at defense.
Player B plays his man tough, denies him getting the ball for 30 seconds. Late in the shot clock the player gets the ball each of the 4 possessions and shoots up prayers. 2 of 4 go in. Same Drtg, much better defender.
In the NBA there are so many possessions that such statistical anomalies will average out.
Second aspect. In the NBA opponents are at least of similar quality, so 10 possessions against team A is roughly equivalent to 10 possessions against team B. In college, some players see most of their action against far lesser quality opponents, that allows them to increase their rtg. Again leading to statistical anomalies.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you at all. I will say this about Burton, not only does he lead DRtg for this year's team but he also is our leader when you combine steal% and block%. Rougly 10% of his defensive possessions result in him either stealing or blocking an opponents shot.
Here's where this is critical. Say an opponent is shooting 50%. If Burton plays 20 defensive possessions his season average indicates that 2 of those 20 possessions will result in a shot not getting a chance to convert to a made FG. Shooting 50% would result in 9 made FGs. Now take a 'better' overall defender that doesn't ever steal the ball or block a shot. That same team shooting 50% would have 10 made FGs which results in 2-3 more points over those 20 defensive possessions.
His disruptiveness on defense is a big factor as to why his DRtg is better than anyone on the team. It's also a reason why Jake Thomas has the worst DRtg on the team despite him being considered a solid defender as he has very small steal and block ratios.
But does it factor in who is on the court when Anderson, Taylor, and Burton are defenders?
They're usually up against the second string aka more offensively inept.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 08:07:31 PM
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you at all. I will say this about Burton, not only does he lead DRtg for this year's team but he also is our leader when you combine steal% and block%. Rougly 10% of his defensive possessions result in him either stealing or blocking an opponents shot.
Here's where this is critical. Say an opponent is shooting 50%. If Burton plays 20 defensive possessions his season average indicates that 2 of those 20 possessions will result in a shot not getting a chance to convert to a made FG. Shooting 50% would result in 9 made FGs. Now take a 'better' overall defender that doesn't ever steal the ball or block a shot. That same team shooting 50% would have 10 made FGs which results in 2-3 more points over those 20 defensive possessions.
His disruptiveness on defense is a big factor as to why his DRtg is better than anyone on the team. It's also a reason why Jake Thomas has the worst DRtg on the team despite him being considered a solid defender as he has very small steal and block ratios.
You do realize that if a defender is a better defender the opposing player will not shoot 50% but less than his average. If he is a poorer defender they will shoot better than there average. Your analysis above assumes that no matter who is the defender they shoot the same % minus the effect of steals/blocks.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 06:46:48 PM
I'm well aware of that, but our leading minute guy always was within the top five as well.
I'm a realist. The loss of Duane Wilson to injury and Vander Blue's departure left Buzz playing two guys he probably didn't intend to play nearly as much. That's why I believe it's even more critical to handle the other positions appropriately.
In another topic I showed how not starting Davante Gardner for the three minutes of each half costs the team 2 points per game. I'm fine with the late game defense/offense substitutions. It's smart on many levels, but it's examples like this that have cost this team.
When you are forced as a coach to use Wilson/Dawson at PG for an entire 40 minutes it means you have to utilize your talent and the other four positions to it's max or you have a 17-14 regular season. For better or worse, we didn't capitalize on that this year. This year required Buzz to have great game management and unfortunately he was probably only average in that regard.
Didn't see that thread, but that is just ridiculous. It assumes that he would play those minutes in addition to his normal average (which is dictated by conditioning not coaching). This is not true.
You are vastly over-relying on statistics in this case. There are three kinds of lies...lies, damn lies and statistics.
Quote from: forgetful on March 09, 2014, 08:55:53 PM
You do realize that if a defender is a better defender the opposing player will not shoot 50% but less than his average. If he is a poorer defender they will shoot better than there average. Your analysis above assumes that no matter who is the defender they shoot the same % minus the effect of steals/blocks.
It's a team shooting FG% you do realize that?
Quote from: forgetful on March 09, 2014, 08:59:10 PM
Didn't see that thread, but that is just ridiculous. It assumes that he would play those minutes in addition to his normal average (which is dictated by conditioning not coaching). This is not true.
You are vastly over-relying on statistics in this case. There are three kinds of lies...lies, damn lies and statistics.
Davante Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher the games he logged more than 30 minutes over the last two seasons. You really should know what your talking about before making assumptions that fatigue would play a negative factor when in reality he's much better when receiving more minutes.
I'm not trying to be offensive but your subjective assumption is not in any way accurate to what actually happens when he plays more minutes.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 07:02:25 PM
Please elaborate. That's a pretty vague answer that so far has no statistical data you've presented to support it.
You now have posted twice on a topic titled 'Final regular season advanced stats' in which it's obvious you don't agree with the results yet you've provided not one bit of contradictory evidence, not one iota of analysis supporting your position and we're supposed to take your subjective viewpoint as a factual statement simply because you stated it.
I'm sorry for you that your confirmation bias is so strong you can be right in your own mind simply because you think it to be so. Tyrants and despots would love you.
Your conclusions are so off base that there's little hope for you. You'd have to be willing to accept and understand that your logic is lacking and you have a weak understanding of the statistics with which you are trying to speak on. But even then I wouldn't.. just don't think you've got the mind for it.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 09:16:51 PM
Davante Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher the games he logged more than 30 minutes over the last two seasons. You really should know what your talking about before making assumptions that fatigue would play a negative factor when in reality he's much better when receiving more minutes.
I'm not trying to be offensive but your subjective assumption is not in any way accurate to what actually happens when he plays more minutes.
No offense taken. I'm just trying to teach you that there is more to data than the raw numbers and that these factors need to be considered.
I absolutely hope that Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher in games where he logged more minutes, but that does not validate your analysis on playing 3 more minutes. Rather, it more likely reflects the fact that against teams where he offers a decided advantage (mismatches in the college game) or in games where he is feeling well (more off days) for whatever reason, that we use him more than is appropriate for his conditioning. If his ORtg was lower in those games it would suggest that he was being over used.
The most important thing that one must consider when using any data, statistical or otherwise is to consider all factors influencing the data. You are not doing so; that is the danger in statistics. That people will use the numbers in an absolute manner, while not considering subtext.
Because of the variability in competition and nature of the college game the sample sizes of comparable situations are not sufficient for holistic analysis of the statistics, rather they always need to be considered on a situational basis, something that you have not been doing in your arguments.
My "subjective assumptions" are contextualizing the actual data.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 09, 2014, 09:57:14 PM
Your conclusions are so off base that there's little hope for you. You'd have to be willing to accept and understand that your logic is lacking and you have a weak understanding of the statistics with which you are trying to speak on. But even then I wouldn't.. just don't think you've got the mind for it.
Strike three. Cannot provide a shred of evidence to support your position. When one resorts to personal attacks it's apparent they've lost the argument.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Quote from: forgetful on March 09, 2014, 11:12:12 PM
No offense taken. I'm just trying to teach you that there is more to data than the raw numbers and that these factors need to be considered.
I absolutely hope that Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher in games where he logged more minutes, but that does not validate your analysis on playing 3 more minutes. Rather, it more likely reflects the fact that against teams where he offers a decided advantage (mismatches in the college game) or in games where he is feeling well (more off days) for whatever reason, that we use him more than is appropriate for his conditioning. If his ORtg was lower in those games it would suggest that he was being over used.
The most important thing that one must consider when using any data, statistical or otherwise is to consider all factors influencing the data. You are not doing so; that is the danger in statistics. That people will use the numbers in an absolute manner, while not considering subtext.
Because of the variability in competition and nature of the college game the sample sizes of comparable situations are not sufficient for holistic analysis of the statistics, rather they always need to be considered on a situational basis, something that you have not been doing in your arguments.
My "subjective assumptions" are contextualizing the actual data.
Of course every player has better games than others. But I'd suggest you're leaving out a significant part of the data if you're content to believe it's nothing more than a chicken and egg situation.
Gardner has been the first or second rated ORtg player on this team the last three seasons. That's a significant sample size played over 90 games against the exact same opponents as the compared players. It's obvious he affects the offense more positively from a statistical standpoint than any other player this team has.
Does playing Gardner an extra three minutes to start each half guarantee the team would've scored the additional 1.8-2 points/game the data suggests? No. There's no guarantee of the outcome being a certainty, but the information available strongly suggests the odds of it occuring over playing Otule for those minutes is much more likely. And if odds aren't a fundamental part of a coach's decision making process then you and I will simply have to disagree.
Why draw up a final play aimed at getting the ball in a playmaker's hands for the last shot?
Why foul a poor FT shooter in late game situations?
Why even play offense/defense substitutions in late game situations?
Coach's play the odds all the time. It's called statistical probability. It doesn't always result in the probable results, but if what you say is true then Gardner being a better offensive player than Otule is simply chance due to not enough sample size.
One final thought as I realize I'm on the west coast and most of you have long retired to your pillows for the evening.
My suggestion for the starting line up based on the data long ago lost in this topic was
D Wilson
Mayo
Burton
J Wilson
Gardner - I would even accept Otule here if Buzz truly values to opening tip but get Gardner in the game at the first whistle.
With significant minutes to Otule and Thomas
With limited minutes to Anderson, Taylor and Dawson
I never got a response regarding the pros and cons of this line up, why it makes sense, why it might not be effective, etc. All I got was a bunch of responses trying to poke holes in the data to either a) support this year's coaching decisions by Buzz, b) explain why even questioning decisions we have no control over is pointless or c) some thanks for providing metrics not found in a box score and a different way of interpreting what we see when we watch a game.
I work in a field where I have to be a problem solver not a problem identifier. Specifically I am paid to implement changes within car dealerships relating to the increased production of sub prime auto loans tapping into unrealized profit centers which requires purchasing specific inventory necessary to optimize financial viability, implementing processes to identify customers that may require alternative finance options, training and hiring staff to accomodate the facilitation of these transactions and building relationships with lenders to make additional finance options available.
I don't have the option of simply identifying problems. I have to solve them. If I can't take a store making $400k/mo gross and turn it into a store making $550-600k/mo my reputation as an automotive dealer consultant would be considerably affected negatively.
I'm sorry if as a fan of Marquette I seek to solve the current team's shortcomings. It's in my nature.
I see a team with a ceiling much higher than it currently sits at at 17-14. While nothing can be done about the results at this point, some people including myself would like to figure out what could have potentially altered the season to a more positive outcome.
I know there are fans out there that prefer to not be critical of a team/coach/player they admire and cheer for and that's perfectly ok. There are other fans that enjoy figuring out potential causes to why something went wrong and that's ok too. I'd suggest for those who don't like these types of potentially critical posts to simply not engage as it creates a rift in the fan base when in reality we're all fans of the team. I'd say the same thing with regards to posters on this forum that intentionally rain on the more positive posts simply to create a reaction.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 10, 2014, 01:23:20 AM
One final thought as I realize I'm on the west coast and most of you have long retired to your pillows for the evening.
My suggestion for the starting line up based on the data long ago lost in this topic was
D Wilson
Mayo
Burton
J Wilson
Gardner - I would even accept Otule here if Buzz truly values to opening tip but get Gardner in the game at the first whistle.
With significant minutes to Otule and Thomas
With limited minutes to Anderson, Taylor and Dawson
I never got a response regarding the pros and cons of this line up, why it makes sense, why it might not be effective, etc. All I got was a bunch of responses trying to poke holes in the data to either a) support this year's coaching decisions by Buzz, b) explain why even questioning decisions we have no control over is pointless or c) some thanks for providing metrics not found in a box score and a different way of interpreting what we see when we watch a game.
I work in a field where I have to be a problem solver not a problem identifier. Specifically I am paid to implement changes within car dealerships relating to the increased production of sub prime auto loans tapping into unrealized profit centers which requires purchasing specific inventory necessary to optimize financial viability, implementing processes to identify customers that may require alternative finance options, training and hiring staff to accomodate the facilitation of these transactions and building relationships with lenders to make additional finance options available.
I don't have the option of simply identifying problems. I have to solve them. If I can't take a store making $400k/mo gross and turn it into a store making $550-600k/mo my reputation as an automotive dealer consultant would be considerably affected negatively.
I'm sorry if as a fan of Marquette I seek to solve the current team's shortcomings. It's in my nature.
I see a team with a ceiling much higher than it currently sits at at 17-14. While nothing can be done about the results at this point, some people including myself would like to figure out what could have potentially altered the season to a more positive outcome.
I know there are fans out there that prefer to not be critical of a team/coach/player they admire and cheer for and that's perfectly ok. There are other fans that enjoy figuring out potential causes to why something went wrong and that's ok too. I'd suggest for those who don't like these types of potentially critical posts to simply not engage as it creates a rift in the fan base when in reality we're all fans of the team. I'd say the same thing with regards to posters on this forum that intentionally rain on the more positive posts simply to create a reaction.
Truly appreciate the stats and analysis mattyv. I'll get back to you with some thoughts later. We had a few guys at one time doing some advanced stats stuff, but they seem to have been absent for a while. Thanks again.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 02:17:17 PM
ORtg team average 105.6 (170th of 351)
Gardner 127.4, Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9
This number is skewed because of Davante Gardner being a statistical outlier compared to the rest of his team offensively. Here's the breakdown if you take Gardner out of this stat. Our team ORtg would drop to 98.1.
Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9
DRtg team average 100.2 (94th of 351)
Burton 93.5, Anderson 93.8, Taylor 99.4, J Wilson 101.1, Mayo 102.4, Otule 102.6, D Wilson 102.9, Gardner 103.6, Johnson 104.8, Flood 105.3, Dawson 105.4, Thomas 105.9
Here's a little perspective. If you take our best five ORtg players regardless of position (Gardner, Thomas, Johnson, Otule, Mayo) and they played an entire 40 minutes together all season they'd average 77.8 pts/game and give up 71.2 pts/game a +6.1 differential.
If you take our five best DRtg players regardless of position (Burton, Anderson, Taylor, J Wilson, Mayo) and they played an entire 40 minutes together all season they'd average 67.7 points/game and give up 67.2 points/game a +0.5 differential.
Our best statistical offensive line up would put up over 10 points more a game and give up 4 points more a game than our best statistical defensive line up.
Food for thought.
After seeing what's bolded, this post unfortunately loses any and all credibility it might have had.
Steve Taylor Jr., regrettably, is among the worst defensive players on this team, not the best. It's not even close...and whatever numbers you can come up with to prove otherwise are fools gold.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 09, 2014, 02:17:17 PM
ORtg team average 105.6 (170th of 351)
Gardner 127.4, Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9
This number is skewed because of Davante Gardner being a statistical outlier compared to the rest of his team offensively. Here's the breakdown if you take Gardner out of this stat. Our team ORtg would drop to 98.1.
Mattyv, again the issue is that you're making absurd statements through the misuse of data that you do not understand.
Try this - how did you get to your claim above... That MU's offensive rating would go from 105.6 to 98.1 without Davante. And when you type it, really think about it. If you humor me with that, I'll speak a bit on the missteps you've made later tonight.
Appreciate the data Matty. Good stuff.
As to your lineup, I love it. The only thing I would change is Thomas for Burton, but Burton still getting significant minutes. With our strength being our frontcourt, and already having a space clogger like Derrick in the game, I think you need your best three point threat on the floor for a majority of the game. Without him, I think we see 4 defenders in the paint, and Davante would get 0 good looks.
Just my humble opinion.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 10, 2014, 08:01:09 AM
Mattyv, again the issue is that you're making absurd statements through the misuse of data that you do not understand.
Try this - how did you get to your claim above... That MU's offensive rating would go from 105.6 to 98.1 without Davante. And when you type it, really think about it. If you humor me with that, I'll speak a bit on the missteps you've made later tonight.
1. I simply differentiated colors to show who's above or below the team average.
2. From a data standpoint, Gardner does skew the team average. His ORtg of 127.4 is extremely good and comparable to some elite players in the conference and country. It's takes players on our team who have slightly above average ORtg numbers (J Wilson, Burton) and puts them below average when it's clear they are not below average offensive players ON THIS TEAM.
3. Of course nothing happens in a vacuum, and removing Gardner from the team isn't static, but your assumption is that other players will simply make up for his lost production which is a huge stretch in logic. Who on this year's team would replace his productivity? Anderson, Taylor, Otule??? Since Gardner has played in all of these games there's simpy no way of knowing what the average ORtg would look like. We can only recalculate the information we have. What you fail to realize is with the exception of Otule (who isn't on the floor at the same time) every single Marquette player's ORtg is positively affected by having Gardner on the floor as well.
I'll try to see if there's any way to remove Gardner and run every other player on the team playing with an average MU replacement player in that position.
You do realize the difference between the team ORtg with Gardner compared to without Gardner is roughly seven points factoring Gardner's minutes? That's hardly a stretch to think he is a net positive seven points to this year's offensively challenged team.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 10, 2014, 01:23:20 AM
One final thought as I realize I'm on the west coast and most of you have long retired to your pillows for the evening.
My suggestion for the starting line up based on the data long ago lost in this topic was
D Wilson
Mayo
Burton
J Wilson
Gardner - I would even accept Otule here if Buzz truly values to opening tip but get Gardner in the game at the first whistle.
With significant minutes to Otule and Thomas
With limited minutes to Anderson, Taylor and Dawson
Here's what is wrong with this lineup. Up until recently Burton would only shoot, head down, bull in a china shop. That player would never have learned team play if you gave him a ton of time. So he was not an effective option until recently, interestingly...about the same time he got more playing time.
Both Burton and Mayo are over aggressive on D going for steals, that leads to open scoring opportunities. With neither of them being good help defenders you put a lot of pressure on the post defenders. Davante is our worst post defender and Jamil is foul prone. That lineup would be a defensive disaster, especially early in the season.
On offense by removing Jake, you remove our only legitimate 3 point threat. Mayo is too inconsistent and is more of a threat off the bounce. They will sag off D. Wilson and Burton and dare them to shoot from deep. That will pack the lane negating both Mayo/Burton's ability to drive and the ability to feed Davante.
Basketball is a chess match, any move is countered, one cannot solely rely on statistical data to diagnose a problem, all factors must be considered on a case by case basis. I also am a problem solver. My method is to examine an immense amount of data and find all the commonalities present to identify the most likely explanation and then to attack any and all theories until only one remains. Statistics is just one piece of data.
Matty, I meant explain how you mathematically got from point A to point B. The calcs.
Quote from: forgetful on March 10, 2014, 12:37:48 PM
Here's what is wrong with this lineup. Up until recently Burton would only shoot, head down, bull in a china shop. That player would never have learned team play if you gave him a ton of time. So he was not an effective option until recently, interestingly...about the same time he got more playing time.
Both Burton and Mayo are over aggressive on D going for steals, that leads to open scoring opportunities. With neither of them being good help defenders you put a lot of pressure on the post defenders. Davante is our worst post defender and Jamil is foul prone. That lineup would be a defensive disaster, especially early in the season.
On offense by removing Jake, you remove our only legitimate 3 point threat. Mayo is too inconsistent and is more of a threat off the bounce. They will sag off D. Wilson and Burton and dare them to shoot from deep. That will pack the lane negating both Mayo/Burton's ability to drive and the ability to feed Davante.
Basketball is a chess match, any move is countered, one cannot solely rely on statistical data to diagnose a problem, all factors must be considered on a case by case basis. I also am a problem solver. My method is to examine an immense amount of data and find all the commonalities present to identify the most likely explanation and then to attack any and all theories until only one remains. Statistics is just one piece of data.
Here's some data to chew on:
17-14
9-9 conference
The defensive first approach didn't work. Period. You cannot have a starting lineup where 3 guys are severely challenged to score - Derrick, Juan, Otule - and a 4th guy who can't create a shot off the bounce - Jake.
You cannot limit minutes for a guy like Mayo who can create a shot at any time, who gets to the FT line at TWICE the rate Vander Blue did last year, where he shoots 81%. You cannot limit minutes of an ELITE level offensive player - Gardner - due to slight defensive limitations.
You cannot leave a guy as talented as Burton on the bench for 28 minutes a game. Bull in china shop or not, he's a force offensively - and has a great nose for the ball defensively. Steals, blocks. He may be out of position occasionally in rotations, and not be the best on ball defender yet, but Juan's defense for example doesn't yield such amazing results that it negates all the warts offensively...and what those wart in turn cause in the way of challenges for the other guys around him. Exact same statement applies to Derrick. And as a result: 17-14, 9-9 in conference play, no wins over Top 40 teams. Awful.
It's first impressions with people on this board.
They are told deonte can't guard so they run with it. Same with Davante.
Derrick is some stopper, so they use that no matter how often he is abused.
No matter how often our defensive lineup is beaten to start games.
Yesterday was lost when buzz kept subbing out davante on d. Our "d lineup" again couldn't get stops and of course couldn't score. No whistles and SJU goes on a mini run to grab lead back as davante can't get back in.
We are 17-14 for a reason. Bad players play too much. Everytime burton comes in positive things happen and we get momentum .
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 09, 2014, 09:57:14 PM
Your conclusions are so off base that there's little hope for you. You'd have to be willing to accept and understand that your logic is lacking and you have a weak understanding of the statistics with which you are trying to speak on. But even then I wouldn't.. just don't think you've got the mind for it.
Wow dude. The guy comes on here with an interesting statistical perspective of the team's results this year and you do nothing but completely bash him. Disagree if you want, but provide a reasoned rebuttal, not this garbage.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 10, 2014, 01:43:18 PM
Wow dude. The guy comes on here with an interesting statistical perspective of the team's results this year and you do nothing but completely bash him. Disagree if you want, but provide a reasoned rebuttal, not this garbage.
This reasonable rebuttal is that he's speaking nonsense.
Quote from: Ners on March 10, 2014, 01:33:22 PM
Here's some data to chew on:
17-14
9-9 conference
The defensive first approach didn't work. Period. You cannot have a starting lineup where 3 guys are severely challenged to score - Derrick, Juan, Otule - and a 4th guy who can't create a shot off the bounce - Jake.
You cannot limit minutes for a guy like Mayo who can create a shot at any time, who gets to the FT line at TWICE the rate Vander Blue did last year, where he shoots 81%. You cannot limit minutes of an ELITE level offensive player - Gardner - due to slight defensive limitations.
You cannot leave a guy as talented as Burton on the bench for 28 minutes a game. Bull in china shop or not, he's a force offensively - and has a great nose for the ball defensively. Steals, blocks. He may be out of position occasionally in rotations, and not be the best on ball defender yet, but Juan's defense for example doesn't yield such amazing results that it negates all the warts offensively...and what those wart in turn cause in the way of challenges for the other guys around him. Exact same statement applies to Derrick. And as a result: 17-14, 9-9 in conference play, no wins over Top 40 teams. Awful.
Here's where additional information is necessary. For Mayo, extenuating circumstances. Early in the season he was injured (ankle then broken nose) and had disciplinary issues AGAIN (suspension), so he could not have been relied upon early in the season.
You drastically underestimate the defensive limitations of Gardner and Burton (early in the year...much better now but still needs improvement).
As a side comment to Hayward, no one told me of the defensive liabilities of these two, I'm well capable of observing that myself, and the fact that I comment on the improvement of Burton as the season progressed proves it is not a first impressions issue...still needs improvement though and needs to keep his head 100% on the game and scouting report...he has mental lapses where he goes into pick-up-game mode.
As for your additional stat:
17-14
9-9 conference
We just didn't have the horses this year. Problems for Mayo early, Burton having great raw ability, but very poor previous coaching, Wilson being injured.....Given all the issues 17-14 and being as close as we were in many of the losses is actually a decent year (not great but decent).
Have a healthy Mayo at ASU and no suspension at UW and a healthy Gardner against SD St and I think we win all three of those games and are sitting at 20-11 and dancing.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on March 10, 2014, 01:41:24 PM
It's first impressions with people on this board.
They are told deonte can't guard so they run with it. Same with Davante.
Derrick is some stopper, so they use that no matter how often he is abused.
No matter how often our defensive lineup is beaten to start games.
Yesterday was lost when buzz kept subbing out davante on d. Our "d lineup" again couldn't get stops and of course couldn't score. No whistles and SJU goes on a mini run to grab lead back as davante can't get back in.
We are 17-14 for a reason. Bad players play too much. Everytime burton comes in positive things happen and we get momentum .
Don't generalize. I have eyes and I am an experienced basketball observer, as you probably are, too.
I don't need fancy stats or contrarian arguments to see that Davante is a poor defender either inside or out. It mostly has to do with his body time and speed, but perhaps there's more to it.
Deonte is a different story. He already has gotten a little better at team defense and he has the athletic ability to improve considerably more. It's a "want-to" thing with somebody like him. If he wants to be a better team defender and positional defender, he will be. What I like about Deonte -- and JJJ, for that matter -- is that they have quick hands, a nose for the ball and generally good instincts about when they can make a steal. This can lead to deflections and takeaways, which in turn lead to fastbreak baskets and dunks. One of the big differences between this year's team and teams of years past is that we had frighteningly few break-away opportunities. We would go entire games without getting a single steal-fastbreak-layin. Our last game -- which lasted 50 minutes -- we had one, and that was by Deonte. When you aren't the best shooting team, getting those easy transition hoops can be a godsend. When you can neither make a 3-pointer nor get easy hoops, you are doomed to mediocrity.
Next year, when Deonte and, presumably JJJ, are getting significant minutes, our PPG-against stats might not be as good but we hopefully will offset that by scoring more -- not only because we'll have more talented offensive players in the lineup but because our defensive players will generate more break-away layups and dunks.
A long-winded way to say that the intelligent observer doesn't consider Deonte a "bad" defensive player, just a different type of defender who can get better at team defense down the road.
Davante is a sieve but still has to be on the court a lot for his offensive ability. Otule definitely has value as a 10-12 mpg player; lots and lots of programs in the top 25 would give at least that much time to a 6-11 guy with good athletic ability who can block shots and draw charges.