[Cracked Sidewalks]Value Add projects MU 93rd; Burton 36% chance at NBA

[MU82]

Eye testers vs science - "Screw those meteorologists, I'm staying on the beach. I've been around a bit, and it doesn't even look like rain to me".

Given how often meteorologists predict rain (here in Charlotte, anyway) and given how often it actually rains, this might not have been the best comparison if one is trying to make a point favoring advanced stats over the eye test.

Personally, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Even the most advanced stats aren't always "right," and the eye test certainly isn't always "wrong." And vice versa.

[tower912]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats. 

[MU82]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats. 

Take it back, or the sabermetricians will have your head. Bill James personally will come to your door wielding the machete. Or he would, if he weren't a nerdy stat-freak!

[NersEllenson]

Wow - so much to comment on here:

First if the eye test doesn't matter and its all about stats - why does every freaking pro team have scouts that go to games?  Why do coaches spend hours analyzing game tape?  They can just use Synergy and other sports statistic technologies and game plan from those alone, right?

We can talk all we want about WHAT IF Duane and McKay were on the team...but hell...what's to say Buzz would have played them??  It's Buzz's fault McKay left.  McKay didn't want to play for the guy, based on what Buzz was trying to do with him.

Highly doubt if Value Add rates Burton as having a 36% chance at NBA, and he could only get 12 minutes last seaon, that Duane Wilson would have been given more than scrap minutes, any different than Dawson or JJJ.

Why in looking at the projected data...did Mayo...who took a HUGE jump in Value Add over his projected...not get more PT?  Anybody...that had a lick of basketball smarts...and looking at the eye test knew Todd was very talented....not surprising he greatly exceeded what the statistical model said...given that he was given much more playing time in 2013-2014 than the 2012-2013 (albeit still WAY underutilized last season).

And basketball is a team game??  NIce Ammo.  Brilliant.  If only Jamil and Davante our leading scorers could have had HUGE years while playing with 2 guys in Derrick and Jake who were so incredibly limited.

Answer the question Sultan, Lenny, Guns and all you other smart A$$ clowns:  If you are an opposing coach and you face a lineup of Derrick, Juan, Jake, Jamil, Otule - who are you taking away?  When your "shooting" guard can't make a 2 point basket or score off the bounce to save his life...and your PG can't make a 3, won't take a FG outside of 2' from the basket, and is the reason you are playing 4 on 5 - how are you going to win...and how can Jamil or Gardner have a big year that could hide the warts that were Derrick and Jake PAIRED TOGETHER?  Those two guys got more minutes than any two players...and they were the two most one-dimensional limited players on the roster.  AWFUL coaching.  Sorry.

[NersEllenson]

You've said it, I've said it, others have said it. Marquette's "expectations" last year (as set by the conference coaches, AP, USA Today and some of our flat earth posters) were ridiculous - especially without Blue, Du Wilson and McKay. All the hand wringing over the coach "changing", not trying to win, etc., was nonsense. Buzz the coach was who he always was, Buzz the GM was the guy caught short on talent. Can't wait to see Ners and his posse weigh in and attack Pudner's accurate and prescient analysis of last year's team - had John published them earlier here maybe it could have prevented some of the silliness of the past 8 months.

I'll be happy to wager anything you or Sultan want regarding Pudner's statistical predictions for this upcoming year putting MU as a 7th place finisher in the Big East.  Just let me know what.  MU will finish better than 7th.  I know you buy into his analysis as THe Bible and foolproof - but I'm happy to go with my eye test analysis.  Don't care that we have a rookie coach. Don't care that we lost 4 starters...and our THREE leading scorers off of last year's team.  What I do know is Buzz was god awful last year.  I know Derrick Wilson won't play 31 minutes a game.  And I know Burton won't play 12 minutes, and Dawson and JJJ won't have any DNPs as they did last season.  And...I know JJJ and Dawson are far more talented than what they were ABLE to show last season due to Buzz's awful coaching.

[NersEllenson]

nm

[NersEllenson]

Player	2013 Value Add	Expected Improvement	Expected 14 VA	Actual 2014 VA
Juan Anderson	1.12	31%	1.47	1.1
Davante Gardner	6.13	18%	7.23	4.75
Todd Mayo	0.66	18%	0.78	1.82
Chris Otule	2.06	18%	2.43	0.41
Steve Taylor	1.47	102%	2.97	0.08
Jake Thomas	0.44	18%	0.51	0.77
Derrick Wilson	0.9	31%	1.17	0
Jamil Wilson	4.2	18%	4.96	1.47
TOTALS	16.98		21.52	10.40

Am I reading this right?  One guy that played more minutes than any other player on the team was a 0 Value Add last year.  LOL.  This is so rich and comical.

I wonder what happened to Gardner?  a 6.13 value add as a Junior, but one more year of strength and conditioning under Todd Smith and another year of Buzz's coaching and he regressed to a 4.75??  Weird.

Wonder why Todd Mayo is a 1.82 Value Add last season, yet Jake Thomas played 200+ more minutes than Todd was a .77 Value Add.

But come on Lenny and Sultan - Pudner's stats are right on, correct?!!  I do agree.  They pegged Derrick right on.  He added NOTHING toward winning.  While detracting from a guy like Gardner, due to the total lack of respect shown (and rightfully so) to Derrick's lack of a perimeter game.

[GGGG]

I'll be happy to wager anything you or Sultan want regarding Pudner's statistical predictions for this upcoming year putting MU as a 7th place finisher in the Big East.  Just let me know what.  MU will finish better than 7th.  I know you buy into his analysis as THe Bible and foolproof - but I'm happy to go with my eye test analysis.  Don't care that we have a rookie coach. Don't care that we lost 4 starters...and our THREE leading scorers off of last year's team. 

You think they will be better then seventh...and you very well might be right!  I hardly view his statistics as the Bible.  John even said that MU exceeded expectations in Buzz's 2nd year as an example of how no model can be perfect.  You don't know how individuals will improve - they aren't robots.

The only reason I posted the standings in the first place is because I was astounded as to how accurately his model predicted the actual order of finish.  And to use it as a guide for how we might want to predict this year's finish.

As for the rest of your usual talking points...

I am not going to put you on ignore like TAMU, but I am simply not going to engage in debate with you about this stuff any longer.  It just wears people out. 

[NersEllenson]

You think they will be better then seventh...and you very well might be right!  I hardly view his statistics as the Bible.  John even said that MU exceeded expectations in Buzz's 2nd year as an example of how no model can be perfect.  You don't know how individuals will improve - they aren't robots.

The only reason I posted the standings in the first place is because I was astounded as to how accurately his model predicted the actual order of finish.  And to use it as a guide for how we might want to predict this year's finish.

As for the rest of your usual talking points...

No worries - what is  better question - given that based on usual projection and growth our projected Value Add should have put us at 21.52, good for a solid 3rd in the conference, and clearly an NCAA caliber team - what happened?  Only 1 answer: Awful coaching, and poor skill development by the coaching staff.  The charade that Lenny wants to hang on that the talent wasn't there etc., is just that...a charade.

[MU82]

Not sure what our Value Add was, but we had a few guys who certainly contributed to our Value Subtract!

[MUDPT]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats. 

I was hoping this was in teal.  Derek Jeter is great, and in terms of career current players, he's in between Adrian Beltre and Manny Ramirez.  As for the hits, he's accumulated a bunch, by playing a bunch.  There is a reason Nolan Ryan leads MLB all time in strikeouts and also in walks (by almost 1000).  Rings?  Have to be on a pretty good team.  Here is how his WAR ranks on each WS championship team 1996- 5th, 1998- 1st, 1999- 1st, 2000- 3rd, 2009- 1st.  That's actually pretty remarkable to be the best player on your championship team 10 years apart.  Clutch? There are ratings for that too.  For his career, he has a net clutch rating of 0.29.  His postseason rating since 2002 (first year Clutch was tracked) is -1.45.  Just to put into context, Jonathan Lucroy leads the NL this year in clutch with a rating of 1.74.  So he has basically been the opposite of Lucroy's season this year in clutch, since 2002 (I realize he hit a lot of post season home runs before 2002).  I'm curious which "advanced matrices" think Jeter isn't that great.  I think most advanced metric people believe he should be in the Hall of Fame, but also believe he rates like Barry Larkin or Alan Trammell (not in the Hall of Fame). 

As for the MU projections, most stats people will tell you sample size makes a big difference.  Most of the MU players coming back did not have a lot of sample size to work with and I think most of us believe that they are better players than their small sample showed. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

Right on MUDPT.  This article uses advanced stats to prove Jeter is one of the best of all time. 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/derek-jeters-stats-are-the-stuff-of-legend?ymd=20140212&content_id=67706294

To all you Luddites, a scout is also a type of researcher, just like a scientist is who observes experiments in a lab: Their purpose is confirm the statistics. Math is used in everything we do....including and especially journalism (keeping score)  A scout, brewmaster, coffee cupper, taste tester, life guard are all trained expertly on the results of statistics...as are judges, doctors, astronauts, farmers. Your DNA and brain waves have been digitalized.  It is not an either or argument.  Geeks Rule!

[brandx]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats. 

What if he had been drafted by Houston? He would probably still be a HOFer and Houston would still be a losing team all these years. He would just be Craig Biggio.

It's a lot easier to be a "winner" when you are surrounded by the best players money can buy.

[NersEllenson]

As for the MU projections, most stats people will tell you sample size makes a big difference.  Most of the MU players coming back did not have a lot of sample size to work with and I think most of us believe that they are better players than their small sample showed. 

Wait.  Sample size matters? 

[NersEllenson]

You think they will be better then seventh...and you very well might be right!  I hardly view his statistics as the Bible.  John even said that MU exceeded expectations in Buzz's 2nd year as an example of how no model can be perfect.  You don't know how individuals will improve - they aren't robots.

The only reason I posted the standings in the first place is because I was astounded as to how accurately his model predicted the actual order of finish.  And to use it as a guide for how we might want to predict this year's finish.

As for the rest of your usual talking points...

And by the way....the model you are referring to...actually didn't predict things correctly....going into the season the model projected MU would finish with a 21.65 Value Add (without factoring any freshman contribution..and I'd project this projection would have put MU near the top of the Big East pre-season).  The issue was that based on the WAY we performed last season, we were only a Value Add of 12.36  - - Think you may want to re-think your understanding of this data.  It should predict close to how the standings would rank when based on end of year data turned in, no?

[dgies9156]

Good grief. Am I reading about Sheldon, Leonard, Raj and Howard? Does Penny live across the hall?????

This is incredibly ridiculous. The whole schematic suggests a group of people with more time than sense on their hands. Statistically, we stank last year. No ifs ands or buts. We'll stink again this year if we don't improve.

If you are going to get THIS technical, then solve for the "Red X" that led to last year's miserable season. Was the performance correlated to talent, coaching or some other factor we need to identify. Remember, only three mistakes in a million tries.

[MUDPT]

Good grief. Am I reading about Sheldon, Leonard, Raj and Howard? Does Penny live across the hall?????

This is incredibly ridiculous. The whole schematic suggests a group of people with more time than sense on their hands. Statistically, we stank last year. No ifs ands or buts. We'll stink again this year if we don't improve.

If you are going to get THIS technical, then solve for the "Red X" that led to last year's miserable season. Was the performance correlated to talent, coaching or some other factor we need to identify. Remember, only three mistakes in a million tries.

Is this about the Big Bang Theory?  I've never seen an episode, too busy reading FanGraphs or Ken Pomeroy.

[GGGG]

And by the way....the model you are referring to...actually didn't predict things correctly....going into the season the model projected MU would finish with a 21.65 Value Add (without factoring any freshman contribution..and I'd project this projection would have put MU near the top of the Big East pre-season).  The issue was that based on the WAY we performed last season, we were only a Value Add of 12.36  - - Think you may want to re-think your understanding of this data.  It should predict close to how the standings would rank when based on end of year data turned in, no?

Oh.  See I was afraid I didn't understand the data correctly.

LOL...nevermind.  Thanks for pointing out my error.

[NersEllenson]

Oh.  See I was afraid I didn't understand the data correctly.

LOL...nevermind.  Thanks for pointing out my error.

No worries.  Was just funny to see the others latch on to your original post and start calling me out...while the actual Value Add for Derrick was a 0 last season...and Jake Thomas a whopping .77 - and those two guys played more minutes than any others on the team.  Sure doesn't seem to be intelligent coaching.

Will be interesting to see how things go this year - model isn't projecting very well - yet I suspect it will be wrong again this year, just as it was going into last season (as were all of us as fans, the other Big East coaches, and media - who all felt MU would win Big East or be a top 2 or 3 finisher at worst.)

[Newsdreams]

In before the lock. Big Bang Theory is funny, this thread is just going in circles again with the same arguments in the past 6-7 months?

[Henry Sugar]

I'm curious which "advanced matrices" think Jeter isn't that great. 

Defensive ones. He's been crap defensively for years.

But agree with everything else you wrote.

[mu03eng]

And by the way....the model you are referring to...actually didn't predict things correctly....going into the season the model projected MU would finish with a 21.65 Value Add (without factoring any freshman contribution..and I'd project this projection would have put MU near the top of the Big East pre-season).  The issue was that based on the WAY we performed last season, we were only a Value Add of 12.36  - - Think you may want to re-think your understanding of this data.  It should predict close to how the standings would rank when based on end of year data turned in, no?

Time out, I think we all need to reevaluate the data.  The 12.36 value add doesn't include the freshmen like Burton, who presumably added value.  But even if we ignore that, if our Value Add was suppose to be 21.something and ended up 12.36....we still finished ranked right around where we were predicted to within the Big East.  Does this mean the Big East as a whole was down.  I think we've got to look at this at a conference level as well.  What conferences were predicted to be at preseason per value add and what they ended up being.

It's a closed system, if we did worse than predicted but ended up finishing at the predicted ranking, those we are relative to must also have done worse.  If they did worse, someone had to do better as a whole.

[CTWarrior]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats.  

Of course, this isn't true.  Advanced metrics say Derek Jeter was a great hitter.  Just not a very good shortstop.  And frankly, the eye test (if you're not wearing pin-striped glasses) would agree with that assessment.

[NersEllenson]

Time out, I think we all need to reevaluate the data.  The 12.36 value add doesn't include the freshmen like Burton, who presumably added value.  But even if we ignore that, if our Value Add was suppose to be 21.something and ended up 12.36....we still finished ranked right around where we were predicted to within the Big East.  Does this mean the Big East as a whole was down.  I think we've got to look at this at a conference level as well.  What conferences were predicted to be at preseason per value add and what they ended up being.

It's a closed system, if we did worse than predicted but ended up finishing at the predicted ranking, those we are relative to must also have done worse.  If they did worse, someone had to do better as a whole.

Sorry...you aren't understanding how this works.  The 12.36 DOES include the data from the Freshman (Burton).  YOu'll note in Equalizer's analysis that the actual Value Add for all returning players last season was a paltry 10.40 - but we finished the season at 12.36  (which illustrates the impact of the freshman...Burton I'm sure accounted for close to the 1.96 disparity between the output of all returning players and then the end of season results for 2014 with the freshman factored in.)

The point is, is that if the returning players performed as expected per the model, and plus the freshman's contribution of 1.96 Value Add for last season our projected pre-season value add of 21.65 plus the freshman's contribution would have put us at 23.61....which would have put us neck and neck with Nova and Creighton.

This data further shows how God awful Buzz was last year.  He either failed miserably as a coach, or in his player development.  My argument of course all year long was that playing a guy - who we now know statistically speaking -  brought ZERO value add more minutes than any other player, and another guy the 2nd most minutes who brought a paltry .77 Value Add - was and would lead to a disaster. 

[MUDPT]

Defensive ones. He's been crap defensively for years.

But agree with everything else you wrote.

When they picked up Stephen Drew, someone posted on twitter Jeter's negative defensive rating for the last 11 years straight.  Agree.