Ya need shooters at all 5 positions, hey? Suckers come off the bench and knock it down. Yeah, beat a chitty team, but their defense is solid and consistent. Like the fact Bo has a system and recruits and teaches his system. They're not gonna beat themselves. One hell of a coach.
Except for when Oregon runs up and down the court all day against them...and when Northwestern beat them at the Kohl.
Or Creighton, for that matter. But there has to be a balance, because some days the shots just don't fall. I would agree that MU hasn't had enough shooters recently. Or, more accurately, had guys who were reputed to be shooters coming in but haven't panned out for whatever reason.
Quote from: tower912 on March 20, 2014, 01:52:46 PM
Or Creighton, for that matter. But there has to be a balance, because some days the shots just don't fall. I would agree that MU hasn't had enough shooters recently. Or, more accurately, had guys who were reputed to be shooters coming in but haven't panned out for whatever reason.
::) some of us know the reason, others just refuse to admit the obvious.
Definitely need shooters. Of course balance is critical, but having multiple threats is so important.
Quote from: BenCat12 on March 20, 2014, 01:56:19 PM
::) some of us know the reason, others just refuse to admit the obvious.
Be specific. Derrick scored almost 20 a game in HS. Same with Juan. Jamail Jones. STjr had range out to the 3 pt line. So did Jamil. Jake was a very good 3 pt shooter. Are you saying Buzz can't coach? Turns them into worse shooters? It isn't the offensive scheme, as we saw with the midgets that if there are good 3 pt shooters the offense will always get them looks. So, be specific.
Quote from: tower912 on March 20, 2014, 02:00:04 PM
Be specific.
In a word, "coaching."
More specifically, passing up wide open threes because......."OH MY GOD THE BALL DIDN"T TOUCH THE PAINT YET!"
I modified mine after your post, bencat. Fair enough. We will disagree again.
Relax 4everwarriors, lets see if Bucky gets to the Elite 8, long way to go, don't get jumpy.
Quote from: tower912 on March 20, 2014, 02:04:45 PM
I modified mine after your post, bencat. Fair enough. We will disagree again.
That's just it, I don't know how you can disagree with it. We have seen guys pass up open threes time and again the last two seasons. It comes from two things. Lack of confidence and Buzz's scheme. We have heard that guys get pulled for taking a three if the ball hadn't reached the paint on a possession. Why do STjr and Juan look so tentative on offense? It is usually because they are left wide open and they don't know what to do. Teams sag off of Derrick, pack the paint on Davante, which leaves the small forward position wide open. STjr and Juan always struggle with using their instinct (knock down the open shot) and doing what Buzz wants (pass up the open shot and get the ball in the paint). It is a decision they shouldn't have to make. Watch the games over the next two days and tell me how many guys pass up wide open three point shots, regardless of time left on the clock or whether or not the ball touched the paint. Buzz's scheme made zero sense
this season; ball has touch the paint on every possession, yet he plays guys that allow that philosophy to be taken away by the opposing team. Talk about banging your head against the wall. "Paint Touches" ruins the flow of the game and it ruins the comfort and confidence of shooters.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 20, 2014, 01:42:26 PM
Ya need shooters at all 5 positions, hey? Suckers come off the bench and knock it down. Yeah, beat a chitty team, but their defense is solid and consistent. Like the fact Bo has a system and recruits and teaches his system. They're not gonna beat themselves. One hell of a coach.
I'll take a clue from them when they surpass the post season success of Marquette... or when they beat a higher seeded team in the tournament for the second time under Bo Ryan (13 years!).
Quote from: BenCat12 on March 20, 2014, 02:13:18 PM
That's just it, I don't know how you can disagree with it. We have seen guys pass up open threes time and again the last two seasons. It comes from two things. Lack of confidence and Buzz's scheme. We have heard that guys get pulled for taking a three if the ball hadn't reached the paint on a possession. Why do STjr and Juan look so tentative on offense? It is usually because they are left wide open and they don't know what to do. Teams sag off of Derrick, pack the paint on Davante, which leaves the small forward position wide open. STjr and Juan always struggle with using their instinct (knock down the open shot) and doing what Buzz wants (pass up the open shot and get the ball in the paint). It is a decision they shouldn't have to make. Watch the games over the next two days and tell me how many guys pass up wide open three point shots, regardless of time left on the clock or whether or not the ball touched the paint. Buzz's scheme made zero sense this season; ball has touch the paint on every possession, yet he plays guys that allow that philosophy to be taken away by the opposing team. Talk about banging your head against the wall. "Paint Touches" ruins the flow of the game and it ruins the comfort and confidence of shooters.
You do realize that Buzz' second season we did nothing but bomb threes right? And that players like Crowder & DJO bombed away with impunity too, right? And Jake had several games of 6+ attempts this year. Who on the squad outside of Jake the past 2 years would you want to see launching with any consistency? And are you really gonna complain about a BE champ/E8 season that we didn't shoot more threes? Talk about extrapolating from one bad season....
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 20, 2014, 02:30:06 PM
You do realize that Buzz' second season we did nothing but bomb threes right? And that players like Crowder & DJO bombed away with impunity too, right? And Jake had several games of 6+ attempts this year. Who on the squad outside of Jake the past 2 years would you want to see launching with any consistency? And are you really gonna complain about a BE champ/E8 season that we didn't shoot more threes? Talk about extrapolating from one bad season....
Every season is different. That is why I bolded "this season" in my post. There has been next to zero improvement on three point shooting for the guys currently in the program. That is my point. Guys like Juan, Jamil, STjr, Todd, JJJ, Dawson, and obviously Jake are all capable of knocking down three point shots. But their has been no improvement in any of them in this area, in fact some I believe have regressed. Is it all on the players, that it seems to be program wide? My biggest complaint about Buzz playing Jake all year was that he made very little effort to get Jake clean looks. Jake was used more as a decoy than an actual threat to stretch the floor. It is awfully difficult to get the ball in the paint if the opponent doesn't respect your perimeter game. I believe that if guys were given the green light to shoot when they are open, they would be better shooters and play with more confidence......maybe I am wrong. But again, tell me how many teams that are playing over the next two days pass up as many wide open looks as we do.
I would agree that Jake needed to have more plays run for him. I would agree that Juan, STjr, and Jamil all regressed shooting the 3. I would agree that a staple of MU's offense, the trail 3, (made in previous years by Lazar, Jae, Jamil, Juan, STjr) was missing. 'Paint Touches' is just a Buzz euphemism for something most coaches teach. In the half-court, move the ball. Inside, outside, ball reversal, make the defense rotate and recover, if the opening is there for either a wide open shot or a slash to the basket off of a poor defensive reaction, take it. Don't just pass it around the perimeter. In the half-court, don't just do one pass and fire, unless you are running a play to get that shot (as I agree MU should have done more of with Jake). I also don't understand why, when MU would get a break opportunity, why Jake wouldn't run to the 3 pt line and shoot when open. He passed up a dozen open looks on the break.
Quote from: BenCat12 on March 20, 2014, 02:40:10 PM
Every season is different. That is why I bolded "this season" in my post. There has been next to zero improvement on three point shooting for the guys currently in the program. That is my point. Guys like Juan, Jamil, STjr, Todd, JJJ, Dawson, and obviously Jake are all capable of knocking down three point shots. But their has been no improvement in any of them in this area, in fact some I believe have regressed. Is it all on the players, that it seems to be program wide? My biggest complaint about Buzz playing Jake all year was that he made very little effort to get Jake clean looks. Jake was used more as a decoy than an actual threat to stretch the floor. It is awfully difficult to get the ball in the paint if the opponent doesn't respect your perimeter game. I believe that if guys were given the green light to shoot when they are open, they would be better shooters and play with more confidence......maybe I am wrong. But again, tell me how many teams that are playing over the next two days pass up as many wide open looks as we do.
Jake had the green light. He shot ~6 threes/game. Same rate as Crowder, DJO, Hayward, McNeal. Who else on this year's team did you want launching? Derrick?
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 20, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Jake had the green light. He shot ~6 threes/game. Same rate as Crowder, DJO, Hayward, McNeal. Who else on this year's team did you want launching? Derrick?
Those players you listed could all do other things that made them valuable. Jake is a one trick pony. He needed 8+ attempts a game to make him worthy of playing time. Buzz did a poor job getting him clean looks. A lot of Jakes attempts were when we were down huge, those shot attempts weren't in the flow of every game.
I'm not going to keep explaining the same things over and over. Re-read the posts in this thread.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 20, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Jake had the green light. He shot ~6 threes/game. Same rate as Crowder, DJO, Hayward, McNeal. Who else on this year's team did you want launching? Derrick?
The stats might be eye opening for you.
National Rank of number of 3FGA
2009: 62nd
2010: 78th
2011: 212th
2012: 157th
2013: 276th
2014: 303rd
And national rank for number of 3 point FG made
2009: 63rd
2010: 22nd
2011: 192nd
2012: 160th
2013: 309th
2014: 308th
Either Buzz isn't recruiting 3 point shooters. Or he's not developing those he has.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 20, 2014, 03:46:20 PM
The stats might be eye opening for you.
National Rank of number of 3FGA
2009: 62nd
2010: 78th
2011: 212th
2012: 157th
2013: 276th
2014: 303rd
And national rank for number of 3 point FG made
2009: 63rd
2010: 22nd
2011: 192nd
2012: 160th
2013: 309th
2014: 308th
Either Buzz isn't recruiting 3 point shooters. Or he's not developing those he has.
How were we only 160 in 2012?
Given our roster this year, I'd rather take my chances in the paint with Davante than let guys fire away from three.
Quote from: tower912 on March 20, 2014, 02:00:04 PM
Be specific. Derrick scored almost 20 a game in HS. Same with Juan. Jamail Jones. STjr had range out to the 3 pt line. So did Jamil. Jake was a very good 3 pt shooter. Are you saying Buzz can't coach? Turns them into worse shooters? It isn't the offensive scheme, as we saw with the midgets that if there are good 3 pt shooters the offense will always get them looks. So, be specific.
Doesn't matter if Derrick averaged 30 in HS. He wasn't a shooter then and still isn't (never will be). Being a scorer and being a shooter are two completely different things.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 20, 2014, 01:42:26 PM
Ya need shooters at all 5 positions, hey? Suckers come off the bench and knock it down. Yeah, beat a chitty team, but their defense is solid and consistent. Like the fact Bo has a system and recruits and teaches his system. They're not gonna beat themselves. One hell of a coach.
Izzo said that college basketball fans forget what happened three weeks ago, let alone three years ago. Thanks to 4ever for being a living breathing example of this.
4ever forgets Bucky's 1 and 5 stretch in late January where they had leads in almost every game and choked it away, repeatedly. He forgets that during this stretch Bucky went from ranked #3 to unranked in three weeks. also during this stretch the fans in the Kohl Hole booed this team and Bo for playing so bad. 4ever also forgets them losing to Northwestern at home, then losing at Minnesota and then have the lead with seconds left against Ohio State at home only to literally throw the ball to Aaron Craft to allow tOSU to win the game ... as bad a choke as anyone had in division 1 basketball this year.
Bucky beat themselves many times in late January but since that was more than three weeks ago, all the typical fan like 4ever can see is a perfect record and a perfect coach for the last three weeks. So as far as he is concerned this has been the case since they played with peach baskets.
Thanks for proving Izzo right yet again.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 20, 2014, 03:46:20 PM
The stats might be eye opening for you.
National Rank of number of 3FGA
2009: 62nd
2010: 78th
2011: 212th
2012: 157th
2013: 276th
2014: 303rd
And national rank for number of 3 point FG made
2009: 63rd
2010: 22nd
2011: 192nd
2012: 160th
2013: 309th
2014: 308th
Either Buzz isn't recruiting 3 point shooters. Or he's not developing those he has.
How does this in any way refute the post you quoted about individual players' 3PA/G?
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 20, 2014, 04:04:20 PM
Izzo said that college basketball fans forget what happened three weeks ago, let alone three years ago. Thanks to 4ever for being a living breathing example of this.
4ever forgets Bucky's 1 and 5 stretch in late January where they had leads in almost every game and choked it away, repeatedly. He forgets that during this stretch Bucky went from ranked #3 to unranked in three weeks. also during this stretch the fans in the Kohl Hole booed this team and Bo for playing so bad. 4ever also forgets them losing to Northwestern at home, then losing at Minnesota and then have the lead with seconds left against Ohio State at home only to literally throw the ball to Aaron Craft to allow tOSU to win the game ... as bad a choke as anyone had in division 1 basketball this year.
Bucky beat themselves many times in late January but since that was more than three weeks ago, all the typical fan like 4ever can see is a perfect record and a perfect coach for the last three weeks. So as far as he is concerned this has been the case since they played with peach baskets.
Thanks for proving Izzo right yet again.
The difference is Bo righted his southbound ship into a 2 seed when the entire season could've made like the Titanic. Good coaches can do that.
Yo, haven't forgotten the debacle of years past doe, aka, Coach Crean.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 20, 2014, 04:09:40 PM
How does this in any way refute the post you quoted about individual players' 3PA/G?
You said:
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 20, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Jake had the green light. He shot ~6 threes/game. Same rate as Crowder, DJO, Hayward, McNeal. Who else on this year's team did you want launching? Derrick?
The problem isn't with any one player. Its with the team as a whole. The entire team collectively is way down in terms of 3 point shot attempts--and its not one player, and its not the composition of just this year's team--its a multi-year trend.
Quote from: BenCat12 on March 20, 2014, 02:03:12 PM
In a word, "coaching."
More specifically, passing up wide open threes because......."OH MY GOD THE BALL DIDN"T TOUCH THE PAINT YET!"
Oh no...oh no...Could it be that the much maligned (on this board), Bo knows how to coach big time, while our coach is still learning on the fly?
Quote from: esard2011 on March 20, 2014, 03:51:00 PM
How were we only 160 in 2012?
Because we played many more games than other teams. The Equalizer isn't good with numbers so he misuses them. It would be more appropriate to look at 3FGA/FGA%.
Beware of people who aren't good with numbers but try to use them. There are many of those types around and the
number of them continues to grow.
My The Equalizer impression:
"Uhh,, duhh,... team A shoots 2 3-pointers a game and they played 5 games. team b shoots double the amount of 3's per game compared to team a (i.e., 4) but they only played 2 games. I can't even speak to pace of play cuz dat confuses me. but, obviously team a shoots more 3 pointers bcuz dey shot 10 3's and b only shotted 8! see, the numberz dont lie!!"
Awful.
The thing that most impresses me about Bo is that he gets freshmen to accept that they aren't playing big minutes during their first year unless they are exceptional. Koenig and Hayes got sporadic minutes, but enough that they are looked on as heroic. Last year, Dekker got pulled after every defensive breakdown. There was no talk of him transferring. Sure, some in their fanbase wanted him to have a longer leash. But it was consistent. Defensive breakdown, sit down.
Quote from: BenCat12 on March 20, 2014, 02:13:18 PM
Why do STjr and Juan look so tentative on offense? It is usually because they are left wide open and they don't know what to do.
Well.... our '3' next year definitely knows what to do when he gets the ball. Deonte will be the leading scorer next year. He will also take the most shots. With Todd and Deonte, we will have two guys who are aggressive and know what to do to score.
Quote from: tower912 on March 20, 2014, 05:54:43 PM
The thing that most impresses me about Bo is that he gets freshmen to accept that they aren't playing big minutes during their first year unless they are exceptional. Koenig and Hayes got sporadic minutes, but enough that they are looked on as heroic. Last year, Dekker got pulled after every defensive breakdown. There was no talk of him transferring. Sure, some in their fanbase wanted him to have a longer leash. But it was consistent. Defensive breakdown, sit down.
I see what you are trying to do here....but let's get real - here is a comparison between Dawson and Koenig...and we all know Koenig is playing back up to a HELL of a lot better PG in Traveon Jackson, than is Dawson to Derrick Wilson....yet Koenig got 2 times the amount of minutes than Dawson? 500 minutes to 245....or the equivalent of 6.375 FULL, 40 minute games more than Dawson got...and Koenig wasn't playing behind a total and complete stiff...
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=john-dawson&p1=bronson-koenig
Buzz deserves all the hell he's caught for his peculiar and mind boggling decision to play Derrick more minutes than any other player on the team...
Quote from: tower912 on March 20, 2014, 05:54:43 PM
The thing that most impresses me about Bo is that he gets freshmen to accept that they aren't playing big minutes during their first year unless they are exceptional. Koenig and Hayes got sporadic minutes, but enough that they are looked on as heroic. Last year, Dekker got pulled after every defensive breakdown. There was no talk of him transferring. Sure, some in their fanbase wanted him to have a longer leash. But it was consistent. Defensive breakdown, sit down.
Should have added Deonte to Hayes comparison...and Hayes playing behind a hell of a lot better player in Dekker/Kaminsky, than is Deonte in Juan...yet Hayes got 204 more minutes of PT than Burton...perhaps this is why Wisconsin players out of High School are developing better...as Bo does a good job of getting their feet wet as freshman with some legitimate PT..
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=2-deonte-burton&p1=bronson-koenig&p2=john-dawson&p3=nigel-hayes
Quote from: Ners on March 20, 2014, 06:26:19 PM
I see what you are trying to do here....but let's get real - here is a comparison between Dawson and Koenig...and we all know Koenig is playing back up to a HELL of a lot better PG in Traveon Jackson, than is Dawson to Derrick Wilson....yet Koenig got 2 times the amount of minutes than Dawson? 500 minutes to 245....or the equivalent of 6.375 FULL, 40 minute games more than Dawson got...and Koenig wasn't playing behind a total and complete stiff...
Haha, what a bizarre commentary. Koenig is very good and played well - that's why he played.
Koenig - 13% usage, 114 ORtg, sub-14% turnover rate
Dawson - 15% usage, 85 ORtg, 27%+ turnover rate
I believe that if Dawson had performed at Koenig's level he would have played more. I
know that your commentary above is bizarre.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 20, 2014, 06:31:13 PM
Haha, what a bizarre commentary. Koenig is very good and played well - that's why he played.
Koenig - 13% usage, 114 ORtg, sub-14% turnover rate
Dawson - 15% usage, 85 ORtg, 27%+ turnover rate
I believe that if Dawson had performed at Koenig's level he would have played more. I know that your commentary above is bizarre.
You also fail to mention Dawson assists, rebounds, and gets to the FT line at a higher rate than Koenig..and shoots a better FT% as well. And...I know you are a stat head...but getting 3 minutes a game, to a DNP, DNP, to 17 minutes, to 8, to 30, to 12....and playing with 9 different guys in a 3 minute stint as Dawson had the pleasure of doing...really makes a lot the the metrics very irrelevant due to such irregular usage and sample size consistency. Ken Pomroy doesn't even include games where a player plays less than 10 minutes in a game in his ORating calculations - throws them out as he knows they aren't relevant sample size to be statistically relevant. Dawson got exactly 4 games this season over 10 minutes....pretty damn limited sample size. Just ironic that he sat and played 245 less minutes behind Derrick than Koenig did Traevon Jackson..
Why do you think Mayo played so much better the last 10 games of the year? Think it had anything to do with him getting consistent stretches of run and not getting yanked out at first mistake?
Quote from: Ners on March 20, 2014, 06:39:47 PM
You also fail to mention Dawson assists, rebounds, and gets to the FT line at a higher rate than Koenig..and shoots a better FT% as well. And...I know you are a stat head...but getting 3 minutes a game, to a DNP, DNP, to 17 minutes, to 8, to 30, to 12....and playing with 9 different guys in a 3 minute stint as Dawson had the pleasure of doing...really makes a lot the the metrics very irrelevant due to such irregular usage and sample size consistency. Ken Pomroy doesn't even include games where a player plays less than 10 minutes in a game in his ORating calculations - throws them out as he knows they aren't relevant sample size to be statistically relevant. Dawson got exactly 4 games this season over 10 minutes....pretty damn limited sample size. Just ironic that he sat and played 245 less minutes behind Derrick than Koenig did Traevon Jackson..
Why do you think Mayo played so much better the last 10 games of the year? Think it had anything to do with him getting consistent stretches of run and not getting yanked out at first mistake?
Ners, c'mon man. I can't even argue with you when you're this ignorant. Your claim on Pomroy (sic) is false with regard to throwing out less than 10 minute appearances. Completely false and nonsense. Shush. And all those stats you point to except for DR% are baked into ORtg. (PS-Koenig had better a blk% and stl% than Dawson as well... not in ORtg).
There is zero ironic about Dawson playing x number of minutes less than Koenig. Zero.
As for Mayo, that's a completely different topic. The problem people often run into (besides talking about that which they do not understand) is they try to expand one analysis into others. Sigh.
I have no problem in arguing that Buzz's lineup decisions were so sub-optimal that they hurt the team's performance.
December 2013: Marquette's Shots Aren't Adding Up (http://latenighthoops.com/marquettes-shots-arent-adding/#.Uyt-c_ldVPI). However, that is wholly unrelated to Dawson vs. Koenig.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 20, 2014, 06:50:29 PM
Ners, c'mon man. I can't even argue with you when you're this ignorant. Your claim on Pomroy (sic) is false with regard to throwing out less than 10 minute appearances. Completely false and nonsense. Shush. And all those stats you point to except for DR% are baked into ORtg. (PS-Koenig had better a blk% and stl% than Dawson as well... not in ORtg).
There is zero ironic about Dawson playing x number of minutes less than Koenig. Zero.
As for Mayo, that's a completely different topic. The problem people often run into (besides talking about that which they do not understand) is they try to expand one analysis into others. Sigh.
I have no problem in arguing that Buzz's lineup decisions were so sub-optimal that they hurt the team's performance. December 2013: Marquette's Shots Aren't Adding Up (http://latenighthoops.com/marquettes-shots-arent-adding/#.Uyt-c_ldVPI). However, that is wholly unrelated to Dawson vs. Koenig.
Sorry JayBee...perhaps I interpret Pomroy wrong?...but take a look at the attachments for both Koenig and Dawson...notice there are games Dawson played less than 10 minutes, scored points..and still no ORating...as was the case in every game where he played less than 10...you'll notice Koenig's PT from the get go was A LOT more consistent than was Dawson....my biggest issue is that regardless if* Koenig is/was better....it is amazing Koenig can get minutes at Wisconsin, yet Buzz refused to give Dawson consistent run while backing up arguably the WORST starting PG on a Top 100 team...perhaps not ironic...but quite startling...
So...you still sure I'm ignorant and that the notion Pomroy doesn't assign an ORating to a player who plays less than 10 minutes..and that it is "completely false and nonesense?" C'mon on man. ;D
Quote from: Ners on March 20, 2014, 07:20:51 PM
Sorry JayBee...perhaps I interpret Pomroy wrong?...but take a look at the attachments for both Koenig and Dawson...notice there are games Dawson played less than 10 minutes, scored points..and still no ORating...as was the case in every game where he played less than 10...you'll notice Koenig's PT from the get go was A LOT more consistent than was Dawson....my biggest issue is that regardless if* Koenig is/was better....it is amazing Koenig can get minutes at Wisconsin, yet Buzz refused to give Dawson consistent run while backing up arguably the WORST starting PG on a Top 100 team...perhaps not ironic...but quite startling...
So...you still sure I'm ignorant and that the notion Pomroy doesn't assign an ORating to a player who plays less than 10 minutes..and that it is "completely false and nonesense?" C'mon on man. ;D
Ignorant may not be the right way to put it - stupid is probably better. I will bet you any sum of money you wish on this topic.
KenPom.com does not display an ORtg in individual box scores for those who played under 10 mins. However, their ORtg most certainly includes all such games.
You are simply wrong. "C'mon on man"... or just c'mon man... stop being an idiot.
So, the numbers may not show up for individual games, but are added into the cumulative totals.
Quote from: tower912 on March 20, 2014, 07:34:39 PM
So, the numbers may not show up for individual games, but are added into the cumulative totals.
That is precisely correct.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 20, 2014, 07:32:55 PM
Ignorant may not be the right way to put it - stupid is probably better. I will bet you any sum of money you wish on this topic.
KenPom.com does not display an ORtg in individual box scores for those who played under 10 mins. However, their ORtg most certainly includes all such games.
You are simply wrong. "C'mon on man"... or just c'mon man... stop being an idiot.
Hold on boys. The idea is to win basketball games my friends not to destroy each other.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 20, 2014, 05:07:15 PM
The difference is Bo righted his southbound ship into a 2 seed when the entire season could've made like the Titanic. Good coaches can do that.
Yo, haven't forgotten the debacle of years past doe, aka, Coach Crean.
Your first thread said "they don't beat themselves". Now you say "he righted his southbound ship." Just stop, you keep making izzo's point ... You're basing your entire perception of the program and it's history because the beat a 15 seed in defacto home game.
FYI, before beating mighty American earlier today, Bucky was a loser of two of the last three, including giving away another loss to Nebraska (but hey, they were "righted" and don't "beat themselves")
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 20, 2014, 07:35:25 PM
That is precisely correct.
Serious question - Why do you feel Pomroy doesn't assign or display an ORating for a player in the games where he plays less than 10 minutes...yet rolls all the data from those games up into a season ORating? Seems incongruent, does it not? Basically don't assign rating for a game where a guy plays less than 10....but then roll all of the data in those games under 10 and include into season ORating?
And by the way, you can make your points, without coming off like an arrogant dick. How's your hoops game JayBee? You any good? If so, let's meet up for some one on one...I'm in the Twin Cities a lot...could be fun to square off for bragging rights....
Quote from: Ners on March 20, 2014, 07:49:06 PM
Serious question - Why do you feel Pomroy doesn't assign or display an ORating for a player in the games where he plays less than 10 minutes...yet rolls all the data from those games up into a season ORating? Seems incongruent, does it not? Basically don't assign rating for a game where a guy plays less than 10....but then roll all of the data in those games under 10 and include into season ORating?
And by the way, you can make your points, without coming off like an arrogant dick. How's your hoops game JayBee? You any good? If so, let's meet up for some one on one...I'm in the Twin Cities a lot...could be fun to square off for bragging rights....
It's Pomeroy, not Pomroy. You're still doubting me? MAKE THE BET! I'll give you 10 to 1 odds. You can pay me when you're in the Twin Cities. We can have an NBA 3-point shooting contest for $20 as well. Name how much you can afford to give me on the "Pomroy" ORtg bet.
No, it doesn't seem incongruent. I'm not going to give you a full education on here because you do not deserve it, but understand many advanced stats are based on estimates. As Ken has explained, he doesn't list the Usage and ORtg in the game boxscores for less than 10 minutes played in a game because, "the assumptions used to estimate these figures have a greater potential of breaking down and leading to non-sensical numbers."
This may be difficult to reconcile for someone who struggles with mathematical calculations or an understanding of how possessions are estimated, but it makes complete sense for knowledgeable folks.
Please do bet me on this (minimum of $20 in order for me to also do the NBA 3-point shooting contest). You're mistaken. I am correct and you are wrong.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 20, 2014, 01:42:26 PM
Ya need shooters at all 5 positions, hey? Suckers come off the bench and knock it down. Yeah, beat a chitty team, but their defense is solid and consistent. Like the fact Bo has a system and recruits and teaches his system. They're not gonna beat themselves. One hell of a coach.
most over-rated part of bo's coaching is the way his teams play defense...not solid...and consistently very average. buzz has more post season success per year in the ncaa d1.
Quote from: tower912 on March 20, 2014, 05:54:43 PM
The thing that most impresses me about Bo is that he gets freshmen to accept that they aren't playing big minutes during their first year unless they are exceptional.
It's impressive to me because so many show great progression. When I look at the year by year stats of Bo's upperclassmen I think "damn, that's some major development" for so many - Brust, Jackson, Kaminsky. Then I look at our roster, and Gardner is the only one that would
maybe show that kind of development.
Yeah, but you can find just as many who didn't progress. Butch, Evans, Bruiser. The lack of progression of MU's seniors, IMO, is the reason for the poor showing. Touched on by Buzz as far back as media day. No leadership. No one is sure they should talk. Don't know who will listen. Only two returning players who have really done anything. I assumed that it would just happen. It always had before. I have to agree with what IWB said on the radio show, and have said so many times. MU needed Jamil to be a star, a la Butler/Jae/Lazar/Vander. He turned out to be a glue buy, a la Lockett. Nothing wrong with that, great kid, no inner beast. Davante progressed, but wasn't a leader. Chris and Jake are great citizens and role models, but both were too limited to take over games on a regular basis. Todd and Deonte showed progress late and I think they will be the building blocks for next year's team.
Quote from: avid1010 on March 20, 2014, 08:07:31 PM
buzz has more post season success per year in the ncaa d1.
Last year only.
2009: MU round of 32, UW round of 32
2010: MU round of 64,
UW round of 322011: MU Sweet 16, UW Sweet 16
2012: MU Sweet 16, UW Sweet 16
2013:
MU Elite Eight, UW round of 64
2014: MU no postseason,
UW round of 32+Buzz NCAA record: 7-5 (58.3%), average NCAA wins per season: 1.33
Bo (entire tenure) NCAA record: 17-12 (58.6%) average NCAA wins per season: 1.42
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 20, 2014, 05:46:50 PM
Because we played many more games than other teams. The Equalizer isn't good with numbers so he misuses them. It would be more appropriate to look at 3FGA/FGA%.
Beware of people who aren't good with numbers but try to use them. There are many of those types around and the number of them continues to grow.
My The Equalizer impression:
"Uhh,, duhh,... team A shoots 2 3-pointers a game and they played 5 games. team b shoots double the amount of 3's per game compared to team a (i.e., 4) but they only played 2 games. I can't even speak to pace of play cuz dat confuses me. but, obviously team a shoots more 3 pointers bcuz dey shot 10 3's and b only shotted 8! see, the numberz dont lie!!"
Awful.
Really? A 5 to 2 ratio in number of games played? Suggesting that tempo explains the multi-year decline in MU's 3 point shooting? Really? And you're trying to claim *I* don't know numbers? You're awful.
At least I don't quote my own blog which in turn quoted my own consulting firm, then pretended that those posts were outside authority or proof for something I said here.
I think you're full of crap on this one. The impact caused by any difference in number of games or tempo isn't enough to change my premise. As far as the number are concerned, I can predict with great confidence that you'll never post anything showing that I was wrong.
You confuse signal and noise. I presented the signal. You're making a big deal over the noise. Yes, there may be some small, marginal impact when it comes to adjusting for tempo or number of games played that I didn't account for. But even taking them into accout, what I said was absolutely correct--there has been a multi-year decline in Marquette's 3 point shooting. In other words--tempo and games-played are noise.
But I tell you what--if you can prove that after adjusting for number of games played and game tempo that there has NOT been a decline in MU's 3 point shooting from 2009/10 to present--I'll graciously acknowledge that you were right and I was wrong. But you have to show your work here on the site--no relying on your secret notepad or make believe friends at latenitehoops or plesant avenue advisors.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 20, 2014, 08:00:29 PM
It's Pomeroy, not Pomroy. You're still doubting me? MAKE THE BET! I'll give you 10 to 1 odds. You can pay me when you're in the Twin Cities. We can have an NBA 3-point shooting contest for $20 as well. Name how much you can afford to give me on the "Pomroy" ORtg bet.
No, it doesn't seem incongruent. I'm not going to give you a full education on here because you do not deserve it, but understand many advanced stats are based on estimates. As Ken has explained, he doesn't list the Usage and ORtg in the game boxscores for less than 10 minutes played in a game because, "the assumptions used to estimate these figures have a greater potential of breaking down and leading to non-sensical numbers."
This may be difficult to reconcile for someone who struggles with mathematical calculations or an understanding of how possessions are estimated, but it makes complete sense for knowledgeable folks.
Please do bet me on this (minimum of $20 in order for me to also do the NBA 3-point shooting contest). You're mistaken. I am correct and you are wrong.
I'll PM you and we can set up a 3 shooting contest...also will suggest we up the stakes on that, and a game of 1 on 1...even a relative stiff can shoot 3's.
So PomEroy feels analyzing data from games a player plays less than 10 minutes can lead to nonsensical numbers while having a greater likelihood of breaking down?? Hmm..that's exactly my freaking point...the whole point all along is that you pumped Koenig as being so superior to Dawson - Koenig got a hell of a lot more consistent playing time, with 26 games over 10 minutes....while Dawson got a lot of scrap minutes and only 11 games all year out 32 where he played more than 10 minutes....therefore in 21 games the minutes he played "have a greater potential of breaking down and leading to non-sensical numbers." I agree. Can't judge a player's ability when the majority of time they get less than 10 minutes per game, particularly when it is often divided up into 3 different stints. Could get skewed results...
So thanks for quoting Pomeroy and in the process, making yourself look like an idiot again. In the meantime, start getting yourself in shape so you can compete in a game of 1 on 1. I don't want it to be a complete humiliation for you...
Equalizer - I replied to someone asking "how were we only 160 in 2012."
My answer was that we played more games than others and went on to say looking at 3fga/fga would make some sense, but your rankings were stupid.
No need to change the subject. Just admit it or shut it.
Quote from: Ners on March 20, 2014, 10:25:13 PM
I'll PM you and we can set up a 3 shooting contest...also will suggest we up the stakes on that, and a game of 1 on 1...even a relative stiff can shoot 3's.
So PomEroy feels analyzing data from games a player plays less than 10 minutes can lead to nonsensical numbers while having a greater likelihood of breaking down?? Hmm..that's exactly my freaking point...the whole point all along is that you pumped Koenig as being so superior to Dawson - Koenig got a hell of a lot more consistent playing time, with 26 games over 10 minutes....while Dawson got a lot of scrap minutes and only 11 games all year out 32 where he played more than 10 minutes....therefore in 21 games the minutes he played "have a greater potential of breaking down and leading to non-sensical numbers." I agree. Can't judge a player's ability when the majority of time they get less than 10 minutes per game, particularly when it is often divided up into 3 different stints. Could get skewed results...
So thanks for quoting Pomeroy and in the process, making yourself look like an idiot again. In the meantime, start getting yourself in shape so you can compete in a game of 1 on 1. I don't want it to be a complete humiliation for you...
You're still not understanding. Sad.
At any rate, you know the deal - NBA 3FG contest for $20 if you pay up on the minimum $20 on ORtg calculations (which I have already won - you were completely wrong, I am absolutely correct).
Go ahead and PM me; I want the $20 before we begin the NBA 3FG contest.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 20, 2014, 08:00:29 PM
I'm not going to give you a full education on here because you do not deserve it
>:(
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2014, 10:42:37 PM
>:(
>:(+1.......I'm going to pass out if I hold my breath much longer.....
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 20, 2014, 10:26:29 PM
Equalizer - I replied to someone asking "how were we only 160 in 2012."
My answer was that we played more games than others and went on to say looking at 3fga/fga would make some sense, but your rankings were stupid.
No need to change the subject. Just admit it or shut it.
First, your answer to the question is wrong.
We played the same number of games in 2009 as we did in 2012 but ranked 63rd with 664 3pt attempts
We played the same number of games in 2013 as we did in 2012 but ranked 309th with 497 3pt attempts
Therefore, saying we ranked 160th becuase "we played more games" is wrong.
Next, there is nothing inherently "stupid" about using the number of 3 point shot attempts (and 3 point makes) to show the multi-year decline in 3 point shooting by Marquette. You're basing that on the false premise that tempo and number of games played had any sort of significant impact. They don't. They are noise, not signal.
I already showed that the number of games in 2009 and 2013 wer ethe same. If we look at tempo, in 2009, we had 65.3 possesions per 40 minutes. In 2013 we had 64.3--nearly identical tempo, exact same number of games. Yet that one psession per game doesn't come close to explaining the 167 fewer 3 point attempts.
Finally, we can look at 3 point field goal point percentage--that's a stat independent of tempo or number of games played--just a flat measure of what percenage of a team's points came from 3 pointers.
2009 28.0% - rank of 190th nationally.
2010 33.1% - rank of 36
2011 23.5% - rank of 381
2012 22.9% - rank of 284
2013 19.0% - rank of 333
2014 20.0% - Rank of 327
Not much difference between in our national rank of either 3 point attempts or 3 pointes made.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/popcorn-gifs/nommer.gif)
My favorite part of this thread is when a game of basketball is considered a way of deciding who is right and who is wrong.
What is next, "My dad can beat up your dad"?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 21, 2014, 07:34:47 AM
My favorite part of this thread is when a game of basketball is considered a way of deciding who is right and who is wrong.
What is next, "My dad can beat up your dad"?
+1
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 20, 2014, 11:46:39 PM
First, your answer to the question is wrong.
We played the same number of games in 2009 as we did in 2012 but ranked 63rd with 664 3pt attempts
We played the same number of games in 2013 as we did in 2012 but ranked 309th with 497 3pt attempts
Therefore, saying we ranked 160th becuase "we played more games" is wrong.
Next, there is nothing inherently "stupid" about using the number of 3 point shot attempts (and 3 point makes) to show the multi-year decline in 3 point shooting by Marquette. You're basing that on the false premise that tempo and number of games played had any sort of significant impact. They don't. They are noise, not signal.
I already showed that the number of games in 2009 and 2013 wer ethe same. If we look at tempo, in 2009, we had 65.3 possesions per 40 minutes. In 2013 we had 64.3--nearly identical tempo, exact same number of games. Yet that one psession per game doesn't come close to explaining the 167 fewer 3 point attempts.
Finally, we can look at 3 point field goal point percentage--that's a stat independent of tempo or number of games played--just a flat measure of what percenage of a team's points came from 3 pointers.
2009 28.0% - rank of 190th nationally.
2010 33.1% - rank of 36
2011 23.5% - rank of 381
2012 22.9% - rank of 284
2013 19.0% - rank of 333
2014 20.0% - Rank of 327
Not much difference between in our national rank of either 3 point attempts or 3 pointes made.
Good grief, you're slow. Read what I replied to - the 2012 "rank" of 157 that you described as "eye opening". Someone asked about it.
Let's go through some very simple things... pointing out we were ranked #157 based on total 3FGA all season isn't eye opening or particularly good information.
- MU played more games than many others teams. If you rank teams based on 3FGA's per game, #157 drops to #210.
- MU's estimated unadjusted tempo was nearly 71 possessions per game, 5 per game higher than the 66 D-I avg that year. (for add'l context, consider 5 * 35 games = add'l 175 possessions.)
- If you consider 3FGA/FGA, MU was ranked around 260th.
- Once you get even deeper and start considering 2FG%, 3FG% (which was actually slightly better, on an effective FG% basis, than 2FG%), free throw rate & percentage, etc... you get down to MU's 3-pointers contributing less than 23% of their total points. That's putting them up around 290th.
Comparing how often teams shoot 3-pointers by citing where they rank in 3FGA is flawed, illogical commentary. Teams play different number of games, they play different speeds, they play different styles.
#157 = eye opening? No. Even you can do better than this, bud. Do better.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 20, 2014, 11:52:02 PM
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/popcorn-gifs/nommer.gif)
This is fantastic
Quote from: Ners on March 20, 2014, 10:25:13 PM
So PomEroy feels analyzing data from games a player plays less than 10 minutes can lead to nonsensical numbers while having a greater likelihood of breaking down?? Hmm..that's exactly my freaking point...the whole point all along is that you pumped Koenig as being so superior to Dawson - Koenig got a hell of a lot more consistent playing time, with 26 games over 10 minutes....while Dawson got a lot of scrap minutes and only 11 games all year out 32 where he played more than 10 minutes....therefore in 21 games the minutes he played "have a greater potential of breaking down and leading to non-sensical numbers." I agree. Can't judge a player's ability when the majority of time they get less than 10 minutes per game, particularly when it is often divided up into 3 different stints. Could get skewed results...
I'm not a stats expert by any means. But I think the reason KP doesn't count stats for players who play less than 20 minutes is because there is potential to exaggerate or underexaggerate their numbers. A player who plays 1 minute but scores a bucket has a Points per 40 of 80. When really, he just happened to get a bucket in his one minute. Opposite is true too. A player who plays 1 minute and doesn't score has a Points per 40 of 0.
I don't think KP's omission proves your narrative of Dawson getting better with time. All it proves is that Dawson's numbers are skewed. Either high or low, we don't know.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 21, 2014, 09:53:47 AM
Good grief, you're slow. Read what I replied to - the 2012 "rank" of 157 that you described as "eye opening". Someone asked about it.
Good grief, you can't read. I said the six-year trend was eye opening. Not one year's data point.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 21, 2014, 09:53:47 AM
Let's go through some very simple things... pointing out we were ranked #157 based on total 3FGA all season isn't eye opening or particularly good information.
No, its not. Which is why I didn't say it was.
The decline in 3 point attempts by Marquette year-over-year is NOT impacted by any difference in the number of games AT ALL. And not significantly impacted by tempo.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 21, 2014, 09:53:47 AM
- MU played more games than many others teams. If you rank teams based on 3FGA's per game, #157 drops to #210.
- MU's estimated unadjusted tempo was nearly 71 possessions per game, 5 per game higher than the 66 D-I avg that year. (for add'l context, consider 5 * 35 games = add'l 175 possessions.)
- If you consider 3FGA/FGA, MU was ranked around 260th.
- Once you get even deeper and start considering 2FG%, 3FG% (which was actually slightly better, on an effective FG% basis, than 2FG%), free throw rate & percentage, etc... you get down to MU's 3-pointers contributing less than 23% of their total points. That's putting them up around 290th.
This is all very nice, but it means nothing until you do it for the other five years.
Do the same for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014. Then compare the same stat over six years and tell me if the trend I stated is any different.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 21, 2014, 09:53:47 AM
Comparing how often teams shoot 3-pointers by citing where they rank in 3FGA is flawed, illogical commentary. Teams play different number of games, they play different speeds, they play different styles.
Again, this is noise. The premise doesn't change.
Quote from: Jay Bee on March 21, 2014, 09:53:47 AM
#157 = eye opening? No. Even you can do better than this, bud. Do better.
Well that was never the point. It was that we've had a multi-year decline in 3 point shooting.
At this point, you can either agree with me that, yes, we have had a multi year decline. Or that somehow, these additional factors you keep mentioning change that premise.
I'm continuing with my premise that the number of 3 point attempts (and makes) demonstrate a decline in 3 point shooting far in excess of anything that could be explained by tempo or number of games or any other FUD you want to bring up.