Final regular season advanced stats

[mattyv1908]

Didn't see that thread, but that is just ridiculous.  It assumes that he would play those minutes in addition to his normal average (which is dictated by conditioning not coaching).  This is not true. 

You are vastly over-relying on statistics in this case.  There are three kinds of lies...lies, damn lies and statistics.

Davante Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher the games he logged more than 30 minutes over the last two seasons.  You really should know what your talking about before making assumptions that fatigue would play a negative factor when in reality he's much better when receiving more minutes.

I'm not trying to be offensive but your subjective assumption is not in any way accurate to what actually happens when he plays more minutes.

[Jay Bee]

Please elaborate.  That's a pretty vague answer that so far has no statistical data you've presented to support it.

You now have posted twice on a topic titled 'Final regular season advanced stats' in which it's obvious you don't agree with the results yet you've provided not one bit of contradictory evidence, not one iota of analysis supporting your position and we're supposed to take your subjective viewpoint as a factual statement simply because you stated it.

I'm sorry for you that your confirmation bias is so strong you can be right in your own mind simply because you think it to be so.  Tyrants and despots would love you.

Your conclusions are so off base that there's little hope for you. You'd have to be willing to accept and understand that your logic is lacking and you have a weak understanding of the statistics with which you are trying to speak on. But even then I wouldn't.. just don't think you've got the mind for it.

[forgetful]

Davante Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher the games he logged more than 30 minutes over the last two seasons.  You really should know what your talking about before making assumptions that fatigue would play a negative factor when in reality he's much better when receiving more minutes.

I'm not trying to be offensive but your subjective assumption is not in any way accurate to what actually happens when he plays more minutes.

No offense taken.  I'm just trying to teach you that there is more to data than the raw numbers and that these factors need to be considered. 

I absolutely hope that Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher in games where he logged more minutes, but that does not validate your analysis on playing 3 more minutes.  Rather, it more likely reflects the fact that against teams where he offers a decided advantage (mismatches in the college game) or in games where he is feeling well (more off days) for whatever reason, that we use him more than is appropriate for his conditioning.  If his ORtg was lower in those games it would suggest that he was being over used.

The most important thing that one must consider when using any data, statistical or otherwise is to consider all factors influencing the data.  You are not doing so; that is the danger in statistics.  That people will use the numbers in an absolute manner, while not considering subtext. 

Because of the variability in competition and nature of the college game the sample sizes of comparable situations are not sufficient for holistic analysis of the statistics, rather they always need to be considered on a situational basis, something that you have not been doing in your arguments.

My "subjective assumptions" are contextualizing the actual data.

[mattyv1908]

Your conclusions are so off base that there's little hope for you. You'd have to be willing to accept and understand that your logic is lacking and you have a weak understanding of the statistics with which you are trying to speak on. But even then I wouldn't.. just don't think you've got the mind for it.

Strike three.  Cannot provide a shred of evidence to support your position.  When one resorts to personal attacks it's apparent they've lost the argument.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[mattyv1908]

No offense taken.  I'm just trying to teach you that there is more to data than the raw numbers and that these factors need to be considered. 

I absolutely hope that Gardner's ORtg is significantly higher in games where he logged more minutes, but that does not validate your analysis on playing 3 more minutes.  Rather, it more likely reflects the fact that against teams where he offers a decided advantage (mismatches in the college game) or in games where he is feeling well (more off days) for whatever reason, that we use him more than is appropriate for his conditioning.  If his ORtg was lower in those games it would suggest that he was being over used.

The most important thing that one must consider when using any data, statistical or otherwise is to consider all factors influencing the data.  You are not doing so; that is the danger in statistics.  That people will use the numbers in an absolute manner, while not considering subtext. 

Because of the variability in competition and nature of the college game the sample sizes of comparable situations are not sufficient for holistic analysis of the statistics, rather they always need to be considered on a situational basis, something that you have not been doing in your arguments.

My "subjective assumptions" are contextualizing the actual data.

Of course every player has better games than others.  But I'd suggest you're leaving out a significant part of the data if you're content to believe it's nothing more than a chicken and egg situation.

Gardner has been the first or second rated ORtg player on this team the last three seasons.  That's a significant sample size played over 90 games against the exact same opponents as the compared players.  It's obvious he affects the offense more positively from a statistical standpoint than any other player this team has.

Does playing Gardner an extra three minutes to start each half guarantee the team would've scored the additional 1.8-2 points/game the data suggests?  No.  There's no guarantee of the outcome being a certainty, but the information available strongly suggests the odds of it occuring over playing Otule for those minutes is much more likely.  And if odds aren't a fundamental part of a coach's decision making process then you and I will simply have to disagree.

Why draw up a final play aimed at getting the ball in a playmaker's hands for the last shot?

Why foul a poor FT shooter in late game situations?

Why even play offense/defense substitutions in late game situations?

Coach's play the odds all the time.  It's called statistical probability.  It doesn't always result in the probable results, but if what you say is true then Gardner being a better offensive player than Otule is simply chance due to not enough sample size.

[mattyv1908]

One final thought as I realize I'm on the west coast and most of you have long retired to your pillows for the evening.

My suggestion for the starting line up based on the data long ago lost in this topic was

D Wilson
Mayo
Burton
J Wilson
Gardner - I would even accept Otule here if Buzz truly values to opening tip but get Gardner in the game at the first whistle.

With significant minutes to Otule and Thomas
With limited minutes to Anderson, Taylor and Dawson

I never got a response regarding the pros and cons of this line up, why it makes sense, why it might not be effective, etc.  All I got was a bunch of responses trying to poke holes in the data to either a) support this year's coaching decisions by Buzz, b) explain why even questioning decisions we have no control over is pointless or c) some thanks for providing metrics not found in a box score and a different way of interpreting what we see when we watch a game.

I work in a field where I have to be a problem solver not a problem identifier.  Specifically I am paid to implement changes within car dealerships relating to the increased production of sub prime auto loans tapping into unrealized profit centers which requires purchasing specific inventory necessary to optimize financial viability, implementing processes to identify customers that may require alternative finance options, training and hiring staff to accomodate the facilitation of these transactions and building relationships with lenders to make additional finance options available.

I don't have the option of simply identifying problems.  I have to solve them.  If I can't take a store making $400k/mo gross and turn it into a store making $550-600k/mo my reputation as an automotive dealer consultant would be considerably affected negatively.

I'm sorry if as a fan of Marquette I seek to solve the current team's shortcomings.  It's in my nature.

I see a team with a ceiling much higher than it currently sits at at 17-14.  While nothing can be done about the results at this point, some people including myself would like to figure out what could have potentially altered the season to a more positive outcome.

I know there are fans out there that prefer to not be critical of a team/coach/player they admire and cheer for and that's perfectly ok.  There are other fans that enjoy figuring out potential causes to why something went wrong and that's ok too.  I'd suggest for those who don't like these types of potentially critical posts to simply not engage as it creates a rift in the fan base when in reality we're all fans of the team.  I'd say the same thing with regards to posters on this forum that intentionally rain on the more positive posts simply to create a reaction.

[jesmu84]

One final thought as I realize I'm on the west coast and most of you have long retired to your pillows for the evening.

My suggestion for the starting line up based on the data long ago lost in this topic was

D Wilson
Mayo
Burton
J Wilson
Gardner - I would even accept Otule here if Buzz truly values to opening tip but get Gardner in the game at the first whistle.

With significant minutes to Otule and Thomas
With limited minutes to Anderson, Taylor and Dawson

I never got a response regarding the pros and cons of this line up, why it makes sense, why it might not be effective, etc.  All I got was a bunch of responses trying to poke holes in the data to either a) support this year's coaching decisions by Buzz, b) explain why even questioning decisions we have no control over is pointless or c) some thanks for providing metrics not found in a box score and a different way of interpreting what we see when we watch a game.

I work in a field where I have to be a problem solver not a problem identifier.  Specifically I am paid to implement changes within car dealerships relating to the increased production of sub prime auto loans tapping into unrealized profit centers which requires purchasing specific inventory necessary to optimize financial viability, implementing processes to identify customers that may require alternative finance options, training and hiring staff to accomodate the facilitation of these transactions and building relationships with lenders to make additional finance options available.

I don't have the option of simply identifying problems.  I have to solve them.  If I can't take a store making $400k/mo gross and turn it into a store making $550-600k/mo my reputation as an automotive dealer consultant would be considerably affected negatively.

I'm sorry if as a fan of Marquette I seek to solve the current team's shortcomings.  It's in my nature.

I see a team with a ceiling much higher than it currently sits at at 17-14.  While nothing can be done about the results at this point, some people including myself would like to figure out what could have potentially altered the season to a more positive outcome.

I know there are fans out there that prefer to not be critical of a team/coach/player they admire and cheer for and that's perfectly ok.  There are other fans that enjoy figuring out potential causes to why something went wrong and that's ok too.  I'd suggest for those who don't like these types of potentially critical posts to simply not engage as it creates a rift in the fan base when in reality we're all fans of the team.  I'd say the same thing with regards to posters on this forum that intentionally rain on the more positive posts simply to create a reaction.

Truly appreciate the stats and analysis mattyv. I'll get back to you with some thoughts later. We had a few guys at one time doing some advanced stats stuff, but they seem to have been absent for a while. Thanks again.

[ATL MU Warrior]

ORtg team average 105.6 (170th of 351)

Gardner 127.4, Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9

This number is skewed because of Davante Gardner being a statistical outlier compared to the rest of his team offensively.  Here's the breakdown if you take Gardner out of this stat.  Our team ORtg would drop to 98.1.

Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9

DRtg team average 100.2 (94th of 351)

Burton 93.5, Anderson 93.8, Taylor 99.4, J Wilson 101.1, Mayo 102.4, Otule 102.6, D Wilson 102.9, Gardner 103.6, Johnson 104.8, Flood 105.3, Dawson 105.4, Thomas 105.9

Here's a little perspective.  If you take our best five ORtg players regardless of position (Gardner, Thomas, Johnson, Otule, Mayo) and they played an entire 40 minutes together all season they'd average 77.8 pts/game and give up 71.2 pts/game a +6.1 differential.

If you take our five best DRtg players regardless of position (Burton, Anderson, Taylor, J Wilson, Mayo) and they played an entire 40 minutes together all season they'd average 67.7 points/game and give up 67.2 points/game a +0.5 differential.

Our best statistical offensive line up would put up over 10 points more a game and give up 4 points more a game than our best statistical defensive line up.

Food for thought.

After seeing what's bolded, this post unfortunately loses any and all credibility it might have had.

Steve Taylor Jr., regrettably, is among the worst defensive players on this team, not the best.  It's not even close...and whatever numbers you can come up with to prove otherwise are fools gold.

[Jay Bee]

ORtg team average 105.6 (170th of 351)

Gardner 127.4, Thomas 110.8, Johnson 110.4, Otule 109.4, Mayo 109.2, J Wilson 105.0, Burton 103.4, D Wilson 96.9, Anderson 92.9, Dawson 88.1, Taylor 82.9, Flood 76.9

This number is skewed because of Davante Gardner being a statistical outlier compared to the rest of his team offensively.  Here's the breakdown if you take Gardner out of this stat.  Our team ORtg would drop to 98.1.

Mattyv, again the issue is that you're making absurd statements through the misuse of data that you do not understand.

Try this - how did you get to your claim above... That MU's offensive rating would go from 105.6 to 98.1 without Davante. And when you type it, really think about it. If you humor me with that, I'll speak a bit on the missteps you've made later tonight.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Appreciate the data Matty. Good stuff.

As to your lineup, I love it. The only thing I would change is Thomas for Burton, but Burton still getting significant minutes. With our strength being our frontcourt, and already having a space clogger like Derrick in the game, I think you need your best three point threat on the floor for a majority of the game. Without him, I think we see 4 defenders in the paint, and Davante would get 0 good looks.

Just my humble opinion.

[mattyv1908]

Mattyv, again the issue is that you're making absurd statements through the misuse of data that you do not understand.

Try this - how did you get to your claim above... That MU's offensive rating would go from 105.6 to 98.1 without Davante. And when you type it, really think about it. If you humor me with that, I'll speak a bit on the missteps you've made later tonight.

1. I simply differentiated colors to show who's above or below the team average.

2. From a data standpoint, Gardner does skew the team average.  His ORtg of 127.4 is extremely good and comparable to some elite players in the conference and country.  It's takes players on our team who have slightly above average ORtg numbers (J Wilson, Burton) and puts them below average when it's clear they are not below average offensive players ON THIS TEAM.

3.  Of course nothing happens in a vacuum, and removing Gardner from the team isn't static, but your assumption is that other players will simply make up for his lost production which is a huge stretch in logic.  Who on this year's team would replace his productivity?  Anderson, Taylor, Otule???  Since Gardner has played in all of these games there's simpy no way of knowing what the average ORtg would look like.  We can only recalculate the information we have.  What you fail to realize is with the exception of Otule (who isn't on the floor at the same time) every single Marquette player's ORtg is positively affected by having Gardner on the floor as well.

I'll try to see if there's any way to remove Gardner and run every other player on the team playing with an average MU replacement player in that position.

You do realize the difference between the team ORtg with Gardner compared to without Gardner is roughly seven points factoring Gardner's minutes?  That's hardly a stretch to think he is a net positive seven points to this year's offensively challenged team.

[forgetful]

One final thought as I realize I'm on the west coast and most of you have long retired to your pillows for the evening.

My suggestion for the starting line up based on the data long ago lost in this topic was

D Wilson
Mayo
Burton
J Wilson
Gardner - I would even accept Otule here if Buzz truly values to opening tip but get Gardner in the game at the first whistle.

With significant minutes to Otule and Thomas
With limited minutes to Anderson, Taylor and Dawson

Here's what is wrong with this lineup.  Up until recently Burton would only shoot, head down, bull in a china shop.  That player would never have learned team play if you gave him a ton of time.  So he was not an effective option until recently, interestingly...about the same time he got more playing time.

Both Burton and Mayo are over aggressive on D going for steals, that leads to open scoring opportunities.  With neither of them being good help defenders you put a lot of pressure on the post defenders.  Davante is our worst post defender and Jamil is foul prone.  That lineup would be a defensive disaster, especially early in the season.

On offense by removing Jake, you remove our only legitimate 3 point threat.  Mayo is too inconsistent and is more of a threat off the bounce.  They will sag off D. Wilson and Burton and dare them to shoot from deep.  That will pack the lane negating both Mayo/Burton's ability to drive and the ability to feed Davante. 

Basketball is a chess match, any move is countered, one cannot solely rely on statistical data to diagnose a problem, all factors must be considered on a case by case basis.  I also am a problem solver.  My method is to examine an immense amount of data and find all the commonalities present to identify the most likely explanation and then to attack any and all theories until only one remains.  Statistics is just one piece of data.

[Jay Bee]

Matty, I meant explain how you mathematically got from point A to point B. The calcs.

[NersEllenson]

Here's what is wrong with this lineup.  Up until recently Burton would only shoot, head down, bull in a china shop.  That player would never have learned team play if you gave him a ton of time.  So he was not an effective option until recently, interestingly...about the same time he got more playing time.

Both Burton and Mayo are over aggressive on D going for steals, that leads to open scoring opportunities.  With neither of them being good help defenders you put a lot of pressure on the post defenders.  Davante is our worst post defender and Jamil is foul prone.  That lineup would be a defensive disaster, especially early in the season.

On offense by removing Jake, you remove our only legitimate 3 point threat.  Mayo is too inconsistent and is more of a threat off the bounce.  They will sag off D. Wilson and Burton and dare them to shoot from deep.  That will pack the lane negating both Mayo/Burton's ability to drive and the ability to feed Davante. 

Basketball is a chess match, any move is countered, one cannot solely rely on statistical data to diagnose a problem, all factors must be considered on a case by case basis.  I also am a problem solver.  My method is to examine an immense amount of data and find all the commonalities present to identify the most likely explanation and then to attack any and all theories until only one remains.  Statistics is just one piece of data.

Here's some data to chew on:

17-14
9-9 conference

The defensive first approach didn't work. Period.  You cannot have a starting lineup where 3 guys are severely challenged to score - Derrick, Juan, Otule - and a 4th guy who can't create a shot off the bounce - Jake.

You cannot limit minutes for a guy like Mayo who can create a shot at any time, who gets to the FT line at TWICE the rate Vander Blue did last year, where he shoots 81%.  You cannot limit minutes of an ELITE level offensive player - Gardner - due to slight defensive limitations.

You cannot leave a guy as talented as Burton on the bench for 28 minutes a game.  Bull in china shop or not, he's a force offensively - and has a great nose for the ball defensively.  Steals, blocks.  He may be out of position occasionally in rotations, and not be the best on ball defender yet, but Juan's defense for example doesn't yield such amazing results that it negates all the warts offensively...and what those wart in turn cause in the way of challenges for the other guys around him.  Exact same statement applies to Derrick.  And as a result:  17-14, 9-9 in conference play, no wins over Top 40 teams.  Awful.

[PGsHeroes32]

It's first impressions with people on this board.

They are told deonte can't guard so they run with it. Same with Davante.

Derrick is some stopper, so they use that no matter how often he is abused.

No matter how often our defensive lineup is beaten to start games.

Yesterday was lost when buzz kept subbing out davante on d. Our "d lineup" again couldn't get stops and of course couldn't score. No whistles and SJU goes on a mini run to grab lead back as davante can't get back in.

We are 17-14 for a reason. Bad players play too much. Everytime burton comes in positive things happen and we get momentum .

[Silkk the Shaka]

Your conclusions are so off base that there's little hope for you. You'd have to be willing to accept and understand that your logic is lacking and you have a weak understanding of the statistics with which you are trying to speak on. But even then I wouldn't.. just don't think you've got the mind for it.

Wow dude. The guy comes on here with an interesting statistical perspective of the team's results this year and you do nothing but completely bash him. Disagree if you want, but provide a reasoned rebuttal, not this garbage.

[Jay Bee]

Wow dude. The guy comes on here with an interesting statistical perspective of the team's results this year and you do nothing but completely bash him. Disagree if you want, but provide a reasoned rebuttal, not this garbage.

This reasonable rebuttal is that he's speaking nonsense.

[forgetful]

Here's some data to chew on:

17-14
9-9 conference

The defensive first approach didn't work. Period.  You cannot have a starting lineup where 3 guys are severely challenged to score - Derrick, Juan, Otule - and a 4th guy who can't create a shot off the bounce - Jake.

You cannot limit minutes for a guy like Mayo who can create a shot at any time, who gets to the FT line at TWICE the rate Vander Blue did last year, where he shoots 81%.  You cannot limit minutes of an ELITE level offensive player - Gardner - due to slight defensive limitations.

You cannot leave a guy as talented as Burton on the bench for 28 minutes a game.  Bull in china shop or not, he's a force offensively - and has a great nose for the ball defensively.  Steals, blocks.  He may be out of position occasionally in rotations, and not be the best on ball defender yet, but Juan's defense for example doesn't yield such amazing results that it negates all the warts offensively...and what those wart in turn cause in the way of challenges for the other guys around him.  Exact same statement applies to Derrick.  And as a result:  17-14, 9-9 in conference play, no wins over Top 40 teams.  Awful.

Here's where additional information is necessary.  For Mayo, extenuating circumstances.  Early in the season he was injured (ankle then broken nose) and had disciplinary issues AGAIN (suspension), so he could not have been relied upon early in the season. 

You drastically underestimate the defensive limitations of Gardner and Burton (early in the year...much better now but still needs improvement).

As a side comment to Hayward, no one told me of the defensive liabilities of these two, I'm well capable of observing that myself, and the fact that I comment on the improvement of Burton as the season progressed proves it is not a first impressions issue...still needs improvement though and needs to keep his head 100% on the game and scouting report...he has mental lapses where he goes into pick-up-game mode.

As for your additional stat:

17-14
9-9 conference

We just didn't have the horses this year.  Problems for Mayo early, Burton having great raw ability, but very poor previous coaching, Wilson being injured.....Given all the issues 17-14 and being as close as we were in many of the losses is actually a decent year (not great but decent).

Have a healthy Mayo at ASU and no suspension at UW and a healthy Gardner against SD St and I think we win all three of those games and are sitting at 20-11 and dancing.

[MU82]

It's first impressions with people on this board.

They are told deonte can't guard so they run with it. Same with Davante.

Derrick is some stopper, so they use that no matter how often he is abused.

No matter how often our defensive lineup is beaten to start games.

Yesterday was lost when buzz kept subbing out davante on d. Our "d lineup" again couldn't get stops and of course couldn't score. No whistles and SJU goes on a mini run to grab lead back as davante can't get back in.

We are 17-14 for a reason. Bad players play too much. Everytime burton comes in positive things happen and we get momentum .

Don't generalize. I have eyes and I am an experienced basketball observer, as you probably are, too.

I don't need fancy stats or contrarian arguments to see that Davante is a poor defender either inside or out. It mostly has to do with his body time and speed, but perhaps there's more to it.

Deonte is a different story. He already has gotten a little better at team defense and he has the athletic ability to improve considerably more. It's a "want-to" thing with somebody like him. If he wants to be a better team defender and positional defender, he will be. What I like about Deonte -- and JJJ, for that matter -- is that they have quick hands, a nose for the ball and generally good instincts about when they can make a steal. This can lead to deflections and takeaways, which in turn lead to fastbreak baskets and dunks. One of the big differences between this year's team and teams of years past is that we had frighteningly few break-away opportunities. We would go entire games without getting a single steal-fastbreak-layin. Our last game -- which lasted 50 minutes -- we had one, and that was by Deonte. When you aren't the best shooting team, getting those easy transition hoops can be a godsend. When you can neither make a 3-pointer nor get easy hoops, you are doomed to mediocrity.

Next year, when Deonte and, presumably JJJ, are getting significant minutes, our PPG-against stats might not be as good but we hopefully will offset that by scoring more -- not only because we'll have more talented offensive players in the lineup but because our defensive players will generate more break-away layups and dunks.

A long-winded way to say that the intelligent observer doesn't consider Deonte a "bad" defensive player, just a different type of defender who can get better at team defense down the road.

Davante is a sieve but still has to be on the court a lot for his offensive ability. Otule definitely has value as a 10-12 mpg player; lots and lots of programs in the top 25 would give at least that much time to a 6-11 guy with good athletic ability who can block shots and draw charges.