MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Henry Sugar on July 29, 2014, 10:24:43 AM
-
The recent Paint Touches post on Juan got some creative juices flowing, so here is a partially formed post on what to expect for next year.
It's not the quality I want for Cracked Sidewalks, mostly because there are two key gaps in the analysis.
#1 - I haven't run a model for reasonable year-over-year improvements in efficiency or usage.
#2 - The selections for each category are /somewhat/ arbitrary.
Caveats included, it's not entirely clueless. In prior posts, I've broken down players via axis for usage and efficiency.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/EfficiencyKey2.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/EfficiencyKey2.png.html)
Generally, an efficiency under 100 is negative. The question relates to an efficient player. I picked the ranking of 110. For usage, Pomeroy breaks it down into five categories. Again, the general agreement is that usage under 20% is a role player. I picked three categories with the choice of 25% being the major player.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/EfficiencyKey1.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/EfficiencyKey1.png.html)
If you break these down on an axis, here is a simple categorization of each type of player. Your best type of player is the Efficient Major Player (efficiency > 110; usage >25%). That's a star. Your worst type of player is the inefficient major player (efficiency <100; usage >25%). I ranked the Efficient contributor (efficiency >110; usage between 20-25%) the same as the Solid Major Player (efficiency 100-110; usage >25%).
If we accept these rankings (which again, I picked for purposes of this conversation), we can look at each player from last year.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Lastyearview2.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Lastyearview2.png.html)
So the top three returnees (?) are Burton, Mayo, and Carlino. JJJ counts as a quality role player. I listed both of #freestevetaylor's years, because his freshman year was so much better than his sophomore year. Juan, Derrick, and Dawson count as inefficient role players. Luke Fischer and Duane Wilson are wild cards.
Then I just looked at a simple model where each player either improved their efficiency by 5 pts or their usage by 2%. Again, this is arbitrary, and I haven't run a full model. However, this is an educated approach.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/60b8a386-dfef-4499-bf46-60ab3af0dc0d.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/60b8a386-dfef-4499-bf46-60ab3af0dc0d.png.html)
What are the implications here?
- Again, the top three players will probably be Burton, Mayo, and Carlino
- Carlino could be a star
- Burton is on his way to being a star, but it probably won't happen this year
- Mayo could have a solid year as a senior either way
- It's preferable that JJJ increase his usage to become more than a role player
- Freshman year Steve Taylor could be either a more efficient role player or an efficient contributor
- Anderson, Derrick, Dawson, and last year Steve Taylor should stay as role players
Again, it's a simple model, but I thought it was a helpful framework to think about what is returning and the potential implications for this year. Feedback welcome.
-
Nice!
Plot these in a magic quadrant for us visual learners.
-
Just can't wrap the old coconut around all of Hank analytical computations. Must be that modern math chit, hey?
-
Henry, this is great stuff. Like 4ever said, I can't wrap my head around all of it, but it does lay a good groundwork for what I think we all hope to see for next year.
-
Amazing. The elite game changer is an efficient role player (which everybody but Buzz and the Sultan knew), and JJJ rides the pines the whole year.
Obviously, Buzz subscribed to the elite game changing methodology (which was not verifiable) instead of Sugar's metrics. And we all know how that worked out.
-
Amazing. The elite game changer is an efficient role player (which everybody but Buzz and the Sultan knew), and JJJ rides the pines the whole year.
Actually Henry's number prove exactly what I was saying about last year all along...
That Derrick was a substandard point guard, but he was the best of bad options. As you can see, Dawson wasn't very good either.
-
Actually Henry's number prove exactly what I was saying about last year all along...
That Derrick was a substandard point guard, but he was the best of bad options. As you can see, Dawson wasn't very good either.
Oh Man. Here comes Ners. Look out.
-
Oh Man. Here comes Ners. Look out.
I don't want to open that debate up again...believe me no one does....but I'm not going to have willie misstate my position.
-
Nice!
Plot these in a magic quadrant for us visual learners.
Let me see what I can do to create some different visuals. I'm honestly not very good with creating graphs using Excel.
Also, if this turns into a DW vs Dawson thread, f*ck you guys.
-
Love this stuff. Thanks for the good work, Henry.
Keeps me from believing my lyin' eyes. ;D
-
Let me see what I can do to create some different visuals. I'm honestly not very good with creating graphs using Excel.
Also, if this turns into a DW vs Dawson thread, f*ck you guys.
If you need help with either of those things let me know
;D
-
Actually Henry's number prove exactly what I was saying about last year all along...
That Derrick was a substandard point guard, but he was the best of bad options. As you can see, Dawson wasn't very good either.
Exactly. Not good, but way better than the alternative.
-
Henry, somewhere I have an Excel file using Pomeroy's "Similar Players" to predict future performance (i.e. using Psycho T's frosh stats predicting Davante senior year, etc.). Would that be useful at all?
-
Amazing. The elite game changer is an efficient role player (which everybody but Buzz and the Sultan knew), and JJJ rides the pines the whole year.
Obviously, Buzz subscribed to the elite game changing methodology (which was not verifiable) instead of Sugar's metrics. And we all know how that worked out.
It is hard to say how good JJJ would have been, if he played a lot more. However, his numbers were skewed by two games where he scored a lot against lower level competition.
He had 18 points against Cal State Fullerton and 12 points against Grambling. I do not remember, if he had another double figure game. He averaged 4.3 points in 21 games and 1.8 points in 9 Big East games. Removing those two games his average for 19 games is 3.2. On a side note Thomas averaged around 15 points for his 6 best games (estimate), which means he probably averaged around 2 points the rest of the season. The odd thing was that our record in Thomas's best scoring games was probably 1-5 or 0-6. That is by memory, but it always seemed to me that when Thomas scored we lost. His first big scoring game was against Arizona St.
-
It is hard to say how good JJJ would have been, if he played a lot more. However, his numbers were skewed by two games where he scored a lot against lower level competition.
He had 18 points against Cal State Fullerton and 12 points against Grambling. I do not remember, if he had another double figure game. He averaged 4.3 points in 21 games and 1.8 points in 9 Big East games. Removing those two games his average for 19 games is 3.2. On a side note Thomas averaged around 15 points for his 6th best games (estimate), which means he probably averaged around 2 points the rest of the season. The odd thing was that our record in Thomas's best scoring games was probably 1-5 or 0-6. That is by memory, but it always seemed to me that when Thomas scored we lost. His first big scoring game was against Arizona St.
JJJ had a real good game against Arizona State.
But his problem is that the next three games he was non-existent. When the conference season started, he got double digit minutes in a couple games, but there was little production. For instance against Xavier he played 14 minutes...0-1 with one rebound and one assist.
I personally thought he struggled in the half court sets. I think he will be better in a system that is more wide open.
-
Actually Henry's number prove exactly what I was saying about last year all along...
That Derrick was a substandard point guard, but he was the best of bad options. As you can see, Dawson wasn't very good either.
Revisionist history Slurpy. You stood by Buzzster over every criticism. Sort of like "he may be less than desirable, but he is our boy" Now trying to take credit from Sugar's analysis. Nobody else was given a decent opportunity as Buzz dug in with the elite game changer. You even defended Buzz's comments about the game changer and being elite. All part of the downhome lonesome cowboy's phoniness.
You are the one that is hopeless.
-
Revisionist history Slurpy. You stood by Buzzster over every criticism. Sort of like "he may be less than desirable, but he is our boy" Now trying to take credit from Sugar's analysis. Nobody else was given a decent opportunity as Buzz dug in with the elite game changer. You even defended Buzz's comments about the game changer and being elite. All part of the downhome lonesome cowboy's phoniness.
You are the one that is hopeless.
How is "he may be less than desirable, but he is our boy" substantively different then "Derrick was a substandard point guard, but he was the best of bad options?"
-
Actually Henry's number prove exactly what I was saying about last year all along...
That Derrick was a substandard point guard, but he was the best of bad options. As you can see, Dawson wasn't very good either.
You don't understand basketball...at all if you truly believe this. These models do not and are not able to account for, what happens to the rest of the guys on the floor when they have to play with a guy that doesn't need to be defended within 5 feet of the basket. The efficiency and usage rating pertain only and solely to the personal stats generated by the player. And let's get real...one guy didn't have any type of relevant sample size nor statistical relevance - trying to compare a 30 minute per game guy to a 10 minute per game guy is ridiculous.
I'll argue that Davante, Jamil, Mayo and Burton's numbers were all pulled down last year as a result of the backcourt they were paired with. But we'll never know...all we can know is what lies ahead this year when you have a good PG, what the effects can be.
Exactly. Not good, but way better than the alternative.
LOL. It really is funny that you truly believe this.
At the end of the day our team O Rating and Efficiency last season was far and away the outlier of Buzz's time at MU...not even a close second as far as how awful our ratings were as a team in those categories. Yet, we returned more experience than ever before, and had our best big man in 20 years..a guy in Mayo who put up better Efficiency and Usage numbers than did Vander Blue as a junior, and a stud Freshman in Burton who Buzz refused to play more..or at least what he deserved.
-
These models do not and are not able to account for, what happens to the rest of the guys on the floor when they have to play with a guy that doesn't need to be defended within 5 feet of the basket. The efficiency and usage rating pertain only and solely to the personal stats generated by the player.
Yet Derrick's assist percentage was better than Dawsons. And Derrick generated an assist every 7.2 minutes. Dawson was every 9.8. Believe me, I don't think either of these is very good...at all. But Derrick seems to have helped his players more than Dawson did.
(And that ends my D v. D debate in this thread.)
-
For some of the visual folks, here's the mapping of where various players fall into the different categories.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/5995690c-dcbb-45a0-a330-a2d14fa160d3.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/5995690c-dcbb-45a0-a330-a2d14fa160d3.png.html)
Now picture each player moving either to the right or up.
-
Revisionist history Slurpy. You stood by Buzzster over every criticism. Sort of like "he may be less than desirable, but he is our boy" Now trying to take credit from Sugar's analysis. Nobody else was given a decent opportunity as Buzz dug in with the elite game changer. You even defended Buzz's comments about the game changer and being elite. All part of the downhome lonesome cowboy's phoniness.
You are the one that is hopeless.
You have to be the dumbest person on this board. You post the way a professional wrestler speaks. Please don't ruin an awesome concept thread Sugar started.
-
You have to be the dumbest person on this board. You post the way a professional wrestler speaks. Please don't ruin an awesome concept thread Sugar started.
And you Sir are merely a low life bomb thrower. And speaking of intelligence/dumbness, exactly what are your qualifications, education level, and major accomplishments?.....Crickets, I suspect.
-
Yet Derrick's assist percentage was better than Dawsons. And Derrick generated an assist every 7.2 minutes. Dawson was every 9.8. Believe me, I don't think either of these is very good...at all. But Derrick seems to have helped his players more than Dawson did.
(And that ends my D v. D debate in this thread.)
Well at the end of the day, Buzz played a highly inefficient role player more minutes than any other guy on the team. And he played his one solid major player last season 12 minutes per game. That's just bizarre to me...and a testament to his poor coaching decision last season.
I won't re-hash any further on this either...but...I can assure you...Derrick was not the best option last year. When you are a freshman and know Buzz will yank you for virtually anything he may not like...it mindf*cks the way you play..shoot too soon..bench..have a turnover forcing the action...bench...yet the veteran in front of you can basically do nothing and play max minutes. Playing to not screw up, is not playing to win. So you are Dawson and you come in the game...and can see that the guy in front of you basically doesn't have to do ANYTHING other than not turn the ball over...and he gets max minutes...perhaps you start to think the same way...maybe I shouldn't try to shoot, force the action, or risk making a mistake..as the quick hook awaits. The freshman basically had to be perfect for Buzz to play them any kind of extended run...which was sad..and not the way a player should be coached.
-
Henry, thank you for the analysis. Very well done
-
Well at the end of the day, Buzz played a highly inefficient role player more minutes than any other guy on the team. And he played his one solid major player last season 12 minutes per game. That's just bizarre to me...and a testament to his poor coaching decision last season.
I won't re-hash any further on this either...but...I can assure you...Derrick was not the best option last year. When you are a freshman and know Buzz will yank you for virtually anything he may not like...it mindf*cks the way you play..shoot too soon..bench..have a turnover forcing the action...bench...yet the veteran in front of you can basically do nothing and play max minutes. Playing to not screw up, is not playing to win. So you are Dawson and you come in the game...and can see that the guy in front of you basically doesn't have to do ANYTHING other than not turn the ball over...and he gets max minutes...perhaps you start to think the same way...maybe I shouldn't try to shoot, force the action, or risk making a mistake..as the quick hook awaits. The freshman basically had to be perfect for Buzz to play them any kind of extended run...which was sad..and not the way a player should be coached.
I think Buzz played mind games with all the players last season which is why the jury is still out on how well many of these guys can really play. Even Derrick, and I agree with you that there were better options last year, was rewarded for playing good defense and never had a chance to develop his offensive game. Under Wojo let's hope that all changes. We will know soon enough.
-
Henry - just two things on first glance:
1) Steve - based on natural progression and team needs, I'd like to see him as a 'contributor' - specifically, somewhere in the area of 21 to 22% usage. Last year was just goofy for him. Fantastic 55% eFG as a frosh, then down to a putrid 34% as a sophomore.. his at the rim shooting: 30/42 FR year for 71.4%; 15/33 45.5%. 71.4% is a bit much to ask if he's our 'big' to start off the year, but something over 50% is reasonable to expect. Big year and opportunity for him.
2) Overall efficiency... remember with the change in application of foul calls we saw a significant increase in efficiency not seen in years. Two seasons ago (and for a number of years prior) the 100 would make sense.. (100.4 two years ago... bounced around 100-102 for a number of seasons going back before that)... but, avg'd ppp jumped to around 104.3. A 4% increase in efficiency is meaningful... perhaps enough to move your classifications of 'solid' vs. 'inefficient', etc..
Anyway, more of a point that I have had to make to myself repeatedly -- 2013-14 was a 'different game' than 2012-13 when considering advanced statistics between years.
-
I think a lot of Taylor's issues last year were lingering affects from his knee surgery. I expect him to be an improved version of the freshman STJ.
-
Partially agree, Sultan. We will see a healthy STjr, but we will see him playing the 5 for a fair amount of the season and then splitting the rest between the 4 and the 5. Not sure how he will do playing big.
-
LOL. It really is funny that you truly believe this.
LOL. The numbers say you're wrong, but what are facts against the Ner's offense only eye test.
-
Buzz's offensive statistics were the mirror opposite of his defensive stats, and they separated further the longer he was here. Paint touches, prevent paint touches. Get fouled, don't foul. Take a two, make them take threes. Low turnovers, force turnovers.
But coaches adjusted over time to him and the talent he recruited matched his philosophy for better or worse. MU's three point shooting (rate and shooting %) declined over time, while the opponents' increased. MU's two point field goal stats similarly increased while the two defensive stats got better as MU protected the paint. Free throw rates were high on offense and low on defense. Same with turnovers.
End of the day, Buzz's <over> obsession with paint touches was his strength and weakness (see Henry's previous CS article). But his real weakness was his inability/unwillingness to adapt to his talent and game planing over time. His over reliance on paint touches came at the loss of perspective on spacing.
The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.
These individual stats will be very different under the new coach mainly because of style of play. Duane will be a star, Juan will not be a PF trapped in a 2 guard's body, and Burton will be unleashed. Carlino will be the floor leader missing last year. The end record may be the same or slightly better, but the use of the resources and style of play will match the talent. But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
-
And you Sir are merely a low life bomb thrower. And speaking of intelligence/dumbness, exactly what are your qualifications, education level, and major accomplishments?.....Crickets, I suspect.
I got a 36 on my SAT and have a perfect 100 IQ
-
After getting a chance to look at this further, I remember some post (maybe on CS, maybe written by you or bamamarquettefan) where each star ranking out of high school was analyzed by how they improved efficiency or win score by year (ex. frosh to soph, soph to junior, junior to senior). If you can find it, you could apply that same analysis here, then maybe do a base case, best case, worst case scenario based on 1 standard deviation above or below each player's mean expected output this year.
After writing that out it sounds like a lot of work, but would definitely be an interesting read. I'll try to find the article.
-
It'll be really interesting to see how Wojo handles Carlino. He likely will need to shoot quite a bit to provide us with the scoring we need to win this season, but long term it might be better for the program to put the ball in Duane and Dawson's hands.
-
Buzz's offensive statistics were the mirror opposite of his defensive stats, and they separated further the longer he was here. Paint touches, prevent paint touches. Get fouled, don't foul. Take a two, make them take threes. Low turnovers, force turnovers.
But coaches adjusted over time to him and the talent he recruited matched his philosophy for better or worse. MU's three point shooting (rate and shooting %) declined over time, while the opponents' increased. MU's two point field goal stats similarly increased while the two defensive stats got better as MU protected the paint. Free throw rates were high on offense and low on defense. Same with turnovers.
End of the day, Buzz's <over> obsession with paint touches was his strength and weakness (see Henry's previous CS article). But his real weakness was his inability/unwillingness to adapt to his talent and game planing over time. His over reliance on paint touches came at the loss of perspective on spacing.
The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.
These individual stats will be very different under the new coach mainly because of style of play. Duane will be a star, Juan will not be a PF trapped in a 2 guard's body, and Burton will be unleashed. Carlino will be the floor leader missing last year. The end record may be the same or slightly better, but the use of the resources and style of play will match the talent. But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
Doc, welcome back. Good to hear your opinion.
-
Well at the end of the day, Buzz played a highly inefficient role player more minutes than any other guy on the team. And he played his one solid major player last season 12 minutes per game. That's just bizarre to me...and a testament to his poor coaching decision last season.
I won't re-hash any further on this either...but...I can assure you...Derrick was not the best option last year. When you are a freshman and know Buzz will yank you for virtually anything he may not like...it mindf*cks the way you play..shoot too soon..bench..have a turnover forcing the action...bench...yet the veteran in front of you can basically do nothing and play max minutes. Playing to not screw up, is not playing to win. So you are Dawson and you come in the game...and can see that the guy in front of you basically doesn't have to do ANYTHING other than not turn the ball over...and he gets max minutes...perhaps you start to think the same way...maybe I shouldn't try to shoot, force the action, or risk making a mistake..as the quick hook awaits. The freshman basically had to be perfect for Buzz to play them any kind of extended run...which was sad..and not the way a player should be coached.
As a basic, basic logical construct, if this quote, by you, is true: "one guy didn't have any type of relevant sample size nor statistical relevance" then the above bolded quote cannot be known. You can KNOW Derrick wasn't good. You cannot KNOW anyone was better merely d/t there not being enough relevant sample size or statistical relevance.
-
I got a 36 on my SAT and have a perfect 100 IQ
Brutal.
-
Brutal.
Congrats! You got half the joke.
-
As a basic, basic logical construct, if this quote, by you, is true: "one guy didn't have any type of relevant sample size nor statistical relevance" then the above bolded quote cannot be known. You can KNOW Derrick wasn't good. You cannot KNOW anyone was better merely d/t there not being enough relevant sample size or statistical relevance.
Yes...I agree...as a logical construct...your point is correct. Yet I know that logic dosen't always apply to sports.
I'm sorry, but I can tell you that John Dawson is a better basketball player, with a much higher ceiling than Derrick Wilson just from watching the two play. I don't care if Dawson's stats offered in this are contrary to my point, because all stats are not created equally, or given the same environment to be attained. What I know is a guy who consistently gets 30+ minutes a game and compiles the stats of an inefficient role player..is greatly underproducing what his minute allocation suggests. I also know a guy who averages 10 minutes a game, and frequently those 10 minutes were comprised of 3 different 3 minute stints of action, of which it was possible the player could play with as many as 10 different guys in those 3 minutes - those stats aren't worth a lick - yet even given all of that disruption, and lack of ability to get into any kind of rhythm...
These stats are reality:
81% FT shooter
28% 3 point shooter
Must be guarded everywhere on the floor
2nd best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating
43% FT shooter
7% 3 point shooter
Only needs to be guarded within 2 feet of the basket, otherwise no threat to sag off of him 5 feet everywhere else on the court.
Best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating.
-
I won't re-hash any further on this either
Then....
...but...I can assure you...Derrick was not the best option last year. When you are a freshman and know Buzz will yank you for virtually anything he may not like...it mindf*cks the way you play..shoot too soon..bench..have a turnover forcing the action...bench...yet the veteran in front of you can basically do nothing and play max minutes. Playing to not screw up, is not playing to win. So you are Dawson and you come in the game...and can see that the guy in front of you basically doesn't have to do ANYTHING other than not turn the ball over...and he gets max minutes...perhaps you start to think the same way...maybe I shouldn't try to shoot, force the action, or risk making a mistake..as the quick hook awaits. The freshman basically had to be perfect for Buzz to play them any kind of extended run...which was sad..and not the way a player should be coached.
And....
I'm sorry, but I can tell you that John Dawson is a better basketball player, with a much higher ceiling than Derrick Wilson just from watching the two play. I don't care if Dawson's stats offered in this are contrary to my point, because all stats are not created equally, or given the same environment to be attained. What I know is a guy who consistently gets 30+ minutes a game and compiles the stats of an inefficient role player..is greatly underproducing what his minute allocation suggests. I also know a guy who averages 10 minutes a game, and frequently those 10 minutes were comprised of 3 different 3 minute stints of action, of which it was possible the player could play with as many as 10 different guys in those 3 minutes - those stats aren't worth a lick - yet even given all of that disruption, and lack of ability to get into any kind of rhythm...
These stats are reality:
81% FT shooter
28% 3 point shooter
Must be guarded everywhere on the floor
2nd best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating
43% FT shooter
7% 3 point shooter
Only needs to be guarded within 2 feet of the basket, otherwise no threat to sag off of him 5 feet everywhere else on the court.
Best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating.
Three things in life are certain, death, taxes, and Ners' inability to resist restating his opinion on Derrick v Dawson ad naseum
-
Yes...I agree...as a logical construct...your point is correct
Ners! I'm so proud! This all we ever wanted you to see! Proving Derrick was a well below average pg was a matter of fact. Proving Dawson was better was a matter of opinion. We have finally found the middle ground! This is a great day in scoop history.Yet I know that logic dosen't always apply to sports.
I'm sorry, but I can tell you that John Dawson is a better basketball player, with a much higher ceiling than Derrick Wilson just from watching the two play. I don't care if Dawson's stats offered in this are contrary to my point, because all stats are not created equally, or given the same environment to be attained. What I know is a guy who consistently gets 30+ minutes a game and compiles the stats of an inefficient role player..is greatly underproducing what his minute allocation suggests. I also know a guy who averages 10 minutes a game, and frequently those 10 minutes were comprised of 3 different 3 minute stints of action, of which it was possible the player could play with as many as 10 different guys in those 3 minutes - those stats aren't worth a lick - yet even given all of that disruption, and lack of ability to get into any kind of rhythm...
These stats are reality:
81% FT shooter
28% 3 point shooter
Must be guarded everywhere on the floor
2nd best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating
43% FT shooter
7% 3 point shooter
Only needs to be guarded within 2 feet of the basket, otherwise no threat to sag off of him 5 feet everywhere else on the court.
Best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating.
Oh gawddammit. I feel for the old bait and switch
-
Ners...don't do it man. Just don't do it. If I see this same argument go on again for a few pages, I'm gonna' click the ban button. If you'd care to comment on Sugar's original post, feel free.
p.s. - same goes for anyone responding to Ners about Derrick. In this thread or any future ones.
-
But coaches adjusted over time to him and the talent he recruited matched his philosophy for better or worse. MU's three point shooting (rate and shooting %) declined over time, while the opponents' increased. MU's two point field goal stats similarly increased while the two defensive stats got better as MU protected the paint. Free throw rates were high on offense and low on defense. Same with turnovers.
But his real weakness was his inability/unwillingness to adapt to his talent and game planing over time. His over reliance on paint touches came at the loss of perspective on spacing.
The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.
But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
I could not agree more on Beauregard's best coaching year and his worst.
While Beauregard was clearly a good recruiter and an equally good motivator, at times he was also a good X's and O's guy ... but, only at times. The Syracuse game where he had Junior run the point from the wing, and the Butler game during the NCAA final 8 come to mind. Overall, Beauregard did show himself to be be a good technical coach. And, these past two years, indeed, reflect poor usage of talent with last year seeming to show a certain "cluelessness."
Regarding bonding, that factor depends in great part on the "head-guy", and this is true in all organization situations. Certainly Coach Wojo seems to being doing all the right things in building his team/family ... but, time will tell.
Finally, regarding advanced statistics/individual performance, and, in particular, the 2014-15 season, it strikes me that this coming year will be all about speed. As in, and here I am quoting the late, great Beauregard, "Fast beats big, if fast is fast." Should the Warriors be really fast, and if the play fast and smart, a number of the optimistic projections made by Henry will be proven true.
Regardless, the coming season ought to be interesting and a good indication of the future direction of the program.
-
2) Overall efficiency... remember with the change in application of foul calls we saw a significant increase in efficiency not seen in years. Two seasons ago (and for a number of years prior) the 100 would make sense.. (100.4 two years ago... bounced around 100-102 for a number of seasons going back before that)... but, avg'd ppp jumped to around 104.3. A 4% increase in efficiency is meaningful... perhaps enough to move your classifications of 'solid' vs. 'inefficient', etc..
Anyway, more of a point that I have had to make to myself repeatedly -- 2013-14 was a 'different game' than 2012-13 when considering advanced statistics between years.
Excellent point (this was my caveat #2, but you've actually done some of the work). By the way, that drastically changes the perception of Burton (going from solid to inefficient) and Carlino (just barely above inefficient).
Also agree 100% about FST being more likely to improve upon his freshman year more than last year.
The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.
These individual stats will be very different under the new coach mainly because of style of play. Duane will be a star, Juan will not be a PF trapped in a 2 guard's body, and Burton will be unleashed. Carlino will be the floor leader missing last year. The end record may be the same or slightly better, but the use of the resources and style of play will match the talent. But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
Agree with everything you posted, but am quoting this for emphasis. Also, it's always a good day when Doc B chimes in.
After getting a chance to look at this further, I remember some post (maybe on CS, maybe written by you or bamamarquettefan) where each star ranking out of high school was analyzed by how they improved efficiency or win score by year (ex. frosh to soph, soph to junior, junior to senior). If you can find it, you could apply that same analysis here, then maybe do a base case, best case, worst case scenario based on 1 standard deviation above or below each player's mean expected output this year.
After writing that out it sounds like a lot of work, but would definitely be an interesting read. I'll try to find the article.
Bama did a version where he looked at improvement by recruit rankings. There's a similar analysis done by Hoya Prospectus based on where a player starts at the usage/efficiency range and how much they improved. That was my caveat #1
Ners...don't do it man. Just don't do it. If I see this same argument go on again for a few pages, I'm gonna' click the ban button. If you'd care to comment on Sugar's original post, feel free.
p.s. - same goes for anyone responding to Ners about Derrick. In this thread or any future ones.
thank you
and thanks to everyone that added some feedback.
-
Ners...don't do it man. Just don't do it. If I see this same argument go on again for a few pages, I'm gonna' click the ban button. If you'd care to comment on Sugar's original post, feel free.
p.s. - same goes for anyone responding to Ners about Derrick. In this thread or any future ones.
I swear I hear "Ode to Joy" playing in the background.
-
Ners...don't do it man. Just don't do it. If I see this same argument go on again for a few pages, I'm gonna' click the ban button. If you'd care to comment on Sugar's original post, feel free.
p.s. - same goes for anyone responding to provoking Ners about Derrick. In this thread or any future ones.
Actually Henry's number prove exactly what I was saying about last year all along...
That Derrick was a substandard point guard, but he was the best of bad options. As you can see, Dawson wasn't very good either.
No worries Rocky - just want to point out that once again I didn't start the "debate" again in this thread ...wasn't going to comment on Sugar's offering...but yet again others feel compelled to re-hash and provoke with their opinion on John/Derrick. I do appreciate you realizing it takes two sides to debate/argue, and certainly Sultan, Tower, TAMU and Lenny have been the perpetuators of the debate and are just as much to blame for the discussion continuing as am I. I appreciate you recognizing this, and placing them under the same ban warning.
-
Bama did a version where he looked at improvement by recruit rankings. There's a similar analysis done by Hoya Prospectus based on where a player starts at the usage/efficiency range and how much they improved. That was my caveat #1
Cool, yeah that's the one I remember. I thought you were looking for ways to flesh it out more and turn it from a partially formed thought into a full CS post, but looking back yet again I don't think that was the case, just a way to get people thinking about expectations for next year's squad (it definitely worked in my case, thanks for putting it together)
-
I'm digging through some work on various websites and will start posting pieces as I sort through them.
First, here is one of the original articles about effective usage, from none other than Ken Pomeroy in 2007
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9
(http://www.basketballprospectus.com/news/images/9_02.gif)
Focus on the heavy blue lines, which represent the 25th percentile and 75th percentile. To clarify, a player with a usage of 20 in Year 1 has a 50% chance of finishing with a usage between 18 and 22.
There is a key passage in the article (emphasis mine)
Once a player demonstrates himself to be a role player, it's unlikely he'll ever be a go-to guy and, therefore, a superstar. It's not quite a law in college basketball, but players who are not very involved in the offense tend to stay that way. Any major changes in a player's usage are usually the result of filling the hole left by a departing possession eater.
There are three key points here. First, for MU, there are two possession eaters to replace. They are Gardner (26%) and Jamil (23%). Second, a new coach changes everything. Third, I would argue that it is more likely for a dramatic change for the freshmen (JJJ/Dawson) instead of the juniors (Juan/Wilson).
Using Pomeroy's table, what does that give us for #mubb?
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/d10503ff-393e-4b39-bcbc-65c0f3fb61a8.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/d10503ff-393e-4b39-bcbc-65c0f3fb61a8.png.html)
Here are the min, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, and max predictions on usage for each returning player. The most likely view is somewhere between the 25th and 75th percentage. Burton projects as a usage range somewhere between 26% and 30%, so a dramatic increase in usage is unlikely. JJJ projects as a usage range between 15 and 18% (which are both role player levels), but he is a candidate for greater usage increase based on the new coach.
Here is the same approach but I've used words instead of numbers.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/13093123-d4eb-4d66-9a13-f5e91cfa34bf.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/13093123-d4eb-4d66-9a13-f5e91cfa34bf.png.html)
Of course, none of this gets to potential changes in efficiency, which we will look at later.
-
No worries Rocky - just want to point out that once again I didn't start the "debate" again in this thread ...wasn't going to comment on Sugar's offering...but yet again others feel compelled to re-hash and provoke with their opinion on John/Derrick. I do appreciate you realizing it takes two sides to debate/argue, and certainly Sultan, Tower, TAMU and Lenny have been the perpetuators of the debate and are just as much to blame for the discussion continuing as am I. I appreciate you recognizing this, and placing them under the same ban warning.
Agreed. Both sides are at fault. Thank you Rocky
-
Sugar, this is amazing off-season stuff
-
I'm digging through some work on various websites and will start posting pieces as I sort through them.
First, here is one of the original articles about effective usage, from none other than Ken Pomeroy in 2007
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9
(http://www.basketballprospectus.com/news/images/9_02.gif)
Focus on the heavy blue lines, which represent the 25th percentile and 75th percentile. To clarify, a player with a usage of 20 in Year 1 has a 50% chance of finishing with a usage between 18 and 22.
There is a key passage in the article (emphasis mine)
There are three key points here. First, for MU, there are two possession eaters to replace. They are Gardner (26%) and Jamil (23%). Second, a new coach changes everything. Third, I would argue that it is more likely for a dramatic change for the freshmen (JJJ/Dawson) instead of the juniors (Juan/Wilson).
Using Pomeroy's table, what does that give us for #mubb?
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/d10503ff-393e-4b39-bcbc-65c0f3fb61a8.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/d10503ff-393e-4b39-bcbc-65c0f3fb61a8.png.html)
Here are the min, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, and max predictions on usage for each returning player. The most likely view is somewhere between the 25th and 75th percentage. Burton projects as a usage range somewhere between 26% and 30%, so a dramatic increase in usage is unlikely. JJJ projects as a usage range between 15 and 18% (which are both role player levels), but he is a candidate for greater usage increase based on the new coach.
Here is the same approach but I've used words instead of numbers.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/13093123-d4eb-4d66-9a13-f5e91cfa34bf.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/13093123-d4eb-4d66-9a13-f5e91cfa34bf.png.html)
Of course, none of this gets to potential changes in efficiency, which we will look at later.
Question for the group:
How much does a player's role effect his efficiency (or potential efficiency)?
Example:
Jake Thomas was never born to be a world beater, but in theory, he could have been more efficient in a limited role. Same for Derrick. In theory, if Derrick's minutes decreased and his role is more limited, wouldn't his efficiency go up (but I suppose his usage would go down, right?)
Or, what about a PG who is surrounded by great players/shooters. Wouldn't his efficiency look pretty good because he would rarely have to shoot unless wide open, and he could rack up a lot of assists?
-
Question for the group:
How much does a player's role effect his efficiency (or potential efficiency)?
Example:
Jake Thomas was never born to be a world beater, but in theory, he could have been more efficient in a limited role. Same for Derrick. In theory, if Derrick's minutes decreased and his role is more limited, wouldn't his efficiency go up (but I suppose his usage would go down, right?)
Or, what about a PG who is surrounded by great players/shooters. Wouldn't his efficiency look pretty good because he would rarely have to shoot unless wide open, and he could rack up a lot of assists?
I believe your intuition in the bolded area is correct.
-
Buzz's offensive statistics were the mirror opposite of his defensive stats, and they separated further the longer he was here. Paint touches, prevent paint touches. Get fouled, don't foul. Take a two, make them take threes. Low turnovers, force turnovers.
But coaches adjusted over time to him and the talent he recruited matched his philosophy for better or worse. MU's three point shooting (rate and shooting %) declined over time, while the opponents' increased. MU's two point field goal stats similarly increased while the two defensive stats got better as MU protected the paint. Free throw rates were high on offense and low on defense. Same with turnovers.
End of the day, Buzz's <over> obsession with paint touches was his strength and weakness (see Henry's previous CS article). But his real weakness was his inability/unwillingness to adapt to his talent and game planing over time. His over reliance on paint touches came at the loss of perspective on spacing.
The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.
These individual stats will be very different under the new coach mainly because of style of play. Duane will be a star, Juan will not be a PF trapped in a 2 guard's body, and Burton will be unleashed. Carlino will be the floor leader missing last year. The end record may be the same or slightly better, but the use of the resources and style of play will match the talent. But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
Agreed. Not sure there is a leader on this team. I, personally, don't think the living situation is helping. And from what I've heard about the off-season/pro-am, it's not starting out well for the players becoming a cohesive, tight unit
-
No worries Rocky - just want to point out that once again I didn't start the "debate" again in this thread ...wasn't going to comment on Sugar's offering...but yet again others feel compelled to re-hash and provoke with their opinion on John/Derrick. I do appreciate you realizing it takes two sides to debate/argue, and certainly Sultan, Tower, TAMU and Lenny have been the perpetuators of the debate and are just as much to blame for the discussion continuing as am I. I appreciate you recognizing this, and placing them under the same ban warning.
Ners - do me a favor - reread your post. You have become your once arch enemy.
-
Question for the group:
How much does a player's role effect his efficiency (or potential efficiency)?
Example:
Jake Thomas was never born to be a world beater, but in theory, he could have been more efficient in a limited role. Same for Derrick. In theory, if Derrick's minutes decreased and his role is more limited, wouldn't his efficiency go up (but I suppose his usage would go down, right?)
Or, what about a PG who is surrounded by great players/shooters. Wouldn't his efficiency look pretty good because he would rarely have to shoot unless wide open, and he could rack up a lot of assists?
I am curious as well how role impacts this. Steve Taylor will definitely be playing out of position some as could Dawson and Duane(both could be PGs or SGs naturally but could play the opposites...I know I'm confused too). Carlino for that case could be similar. The only player we know what position he will play is Derrick Wilson, but don't know if that will impact Henry's analysis
-
Buzz's offensive statistics were the mirror opposite of his defensive stats, and they separated further the longer he was here. Paint touches, prevent paint touches. Get fouled, don't foul. Take a two, make them take threes. Low turnovers, force turnovers.
But coaches adjusted over time to him and the talent he recruited matched his philosophy for better or worse. MU's three point shooting (rate and shooting %) declined over time, while the opponents' increased. MU's two point field goal stats similarly increased while the two defensive stats got better as MU protected the paint. Free throw rates were high on offense and low on defense. Same with turnovers.
End of the day, Buzz's <over> obsession with paint touches was his strength and weakness (see Henry's previous CS article). But his real weakness was his inability/unwillingness to adapt to his talent and game planing over time. His over reliance on paint touches came at the loss of perspective on spacing.
The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.
These individual stats will be very different under the new coach mainly because of style of play. Duane will be a star, Juan will not be a PF trapped in a 2 guard's body, and Burton will be unleashed. Carlino will be the floor leader missing last year. The end record may be the same or slightly better, but the use of the resources and style of play will match the talent. But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
Insightful as always. Welcome back, Doctor. Any thread with you (and jajuannaman) participating is better for it.
-
Agreed. Not sure there is a leader on this team. I, personally, don't think the living situation is helping. And from what I've heard about the off-season/pro-am, it's not starting out well for the players becoming a cohesive, tight unit
Three things... I feel who is the leader questions in the off-season is the forgotten meme of Scoop. We never know who the leader is. That living situation bugs the crap out of me, do we think with Slappy gone and new leadership coming in that things revert to the previous model? What are you hearing about the off-season cohesion? I've been hearing some definite cliques are forming and I'd hope Wojo would focus on that come "bootcamp" time to get that corrected.
-
All I gotta do is watch the motherfooker for a while and I know whether he can hoop or not.
-
Three things... I feel who is the leader questions in the off-season is the forgotten meme of Scoop. We never know who the leader is. That living situation bugs the crap out of me, do we think with Slappy gone and new leadership coming in that things revert to the previous model? What are you hearing about the off-season cohesion? I've been hearing some definite cliques are forming and I'd hope Wojo would focus on that come "bootcamp" time to get that corrected.
What is the word on cliques forming as I must be out of the loop. As far as interesting tweets are concerned - I thought Todd's yesterday was intriguing.
Just ready for everything to start, I feel we have grown past the trees, now the sky is the limit. #MUBB #LoveDaSquad #NoBS
-
No worries Rocky - just want to point out that once again I didn't start the "debate" again in this thread ...wasn't going to comment on Sugar's offering...but yet again others feel compelled to re-hash and provoke with their opinion on John/Derrick. I do appreciate you realizing it takes two sides to debate/argue, and certainly Sultan, Tower, TAMU and Lenny have been the perpetuators of the debate and are just as much to blame for the discussion continuing as am I. I appreciate you recognizing this, and placing them under the same ban warning.
I didn't start it, neither did Tower, TAMU or Lenny. Willie was the one who mentioned Derrick and me specifically. I never mentioned your name.
And no one "provoked" you. You have the ability to not respond.
-
Three things... I feel who is the leader questions in the off-season is the forgotten meme of Scoop. We never know who the leader is. That living situation bugs the crap out of me, do we think with Slappy gone and new leadership coming in that things revert to the previous model? What are you hearing about the off-season cohesion? I've been hearing some definite cliques are forming and I'd hope Wojo would focus on that come "bootcamp" time to get that corrected.
Things not reverting to the previous model is one of the reasons that Buzz left. But I am not sure what is up for the future.
The problem with leadership IMO goes deeper than living arrangements. We have two returning players who have been in the program going on their fourth year and neither of them are leaders. And Taylor? A new transfer in Carlino?
I think Deonte will eventually be that guy, but it may not be until next year.
-
I think a lot of Taylor's issues last year were lingering affects from his knee surgery. I expect him to be an improved version of the freshman STJ.
I think what really had an effect on Taylor/Buzz relationship last year is the fact that Buzz pushed him to have the surgery. When Taylor did not heal quickly he blamed Buzz for pushing him to have it.
-
In rereading the topic of this article it struck me that this board has a lot of partially formed thoughts. ;D
-
So one solid contributor down, but was this really a surprise with Carlino coming here? No super senior commits to vie for playing time...and we have heard hints from Carlino that PG isn't going to be his primary spot. Duane Wilson has impressed Wojo. JJJ is the highest rated recruit in years. Rebuild now for the future with the new start. Plenty of guard depth, even to swing in Juan and Deonte.
MU is so vulnerable on the front, though. Its only two bigs are returning after extensive orthopedic issues, with long rehabs, and ups and downs. Be worried.
Last losing season was 15 years ago folks. Nuclear winter.
-
They will be fun to watch, wide open offense, even when Fisher comes into the picture. Have 7 out of 10 returnees in 2015, add Heldt, Nick and Levin. Maybe a few others, and you can have
a starting line-up of Fisher, Burton, Levin upfront with Taylor and Heldt as back-ups, then Dawson, Duane, JJJ and Nick at the guards and it looks promising. Cohen and Wally who knows,
but add Henry and one of the 5 or 6 guards they are recruiting and 2015 would look very promising, even more so in 2016.