Partially Formed Thoughts on Next Year's Expectations

[Henry Sugar]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

[Skatastrophy]

Nice!

Plot these in a magic quadrant for us visual learners.

[4everwarriors]

Just can't wrap the old coconut around all of Hank analytical computations. Must be that modern math chit, hey?

[GGGG]

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.

[willie warrior]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[mu-rara]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Henry Sugar]

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.

[brandx]

Love this stuff. Thanks for the good work, Henry.

Keeps me from believing my lyin' eyes.

[mu03eng]

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

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[MUDPT]

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?

[bilsu]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[willie warrior]

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.

[GGGG]

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?"

[NersEllenson]

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.

[GGGG]

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.)

[Henry Sugar]

For some of the visual folks, here's the mapping of where various players fall into the different categories.



Now picture each player moving either to the right or up.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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.

[willie warrior]

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.

[NersEllenson]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Henry, thank you for the analysis. Very well done

[muwarrior69]

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.