collapse

Resources

Stud of Western Carolina Game

Kam Jones

20 points, 6 rebounds,
10 assists, 1 block,
1 steal, 25 minutes

2024-25 Season SoG Tally
Jones, K.5
Joplin2
Ross1

'23-24 '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

2024-25 NCAA Basketball Thread by MU82
[Today at 12:56:57 AM]


ESPN+ for MU-ISU by Ardmore Mug
[Today at 12:40:13 AM]


Zaide injury? by Juan Anderson's Mixtape
[December 03, 2024, 11:13:21 PM]


Famous Iowa State Alumni by Galway Eagle
[December 03, 2024, 11:04:20 PM]


Big East 2024 -25 Results by MUMountin
[December 03, 2024, 10:58:33 PM]


Marquette NBA Thread by GoldenEagles03
[December 03, 2024, 10:01:25 PM]


Lifetime Contract Extension by MU82
[December 03, 2024, 07:23:32 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up:  @ Iowa State

Marquette
94
Marquette @
Iowa State
Date/Time: Dec 4, 2024 7:00pm
TV: ESPN+
Schedule for 2024-25
Western Carolina
62

CrackedSidewalksSays

Value Add projects MU 93rd; Burton 36% chance at NBA

I have put the entire database of Value Add projections into a Google Doc that you can open and even edit by clicking here. The database includes 4250 players listed alphabetically by team and then last name, and you can enter edits for missed players, etc.

Focusing purely on the Value Add's in the Big East, the picture would appear pretty bleak. Marquette had the 101st best Value Add in the country last year and 7th best in the conference. The projections give Marquette the 93rd best Value Add this season (ahead of only DePaul) and Creighton) and then 94th next season (ahead of St. John's, DePaul and Creighton). One note is that Creighton always ends up being projected too low for some reason.

Before I throw up a white flag I should note that the Value Add projections are just an estimate based on the average improvement each player has between seasons, and in fact individual improvement varies wildly when you are talking about college kids. From a purely statistical perspective, things looked every bit as bad heading into 2010, and suddenly Marquette was in the tournament.

The other good news is the players considering Marquette - for example, a signing of Diamond Stone alone would propel Marquette to 5th in the Big East and 60th in the country for 2016.

The other nice news is that the database now includes a percent chance of each player making the NBA, and Deonte Burton is now up to a 36% chance, so hopefully MU can keep the pipeline going. Here is the team table for Big East members:
<div>
</div><div><style type="text/css"> table.tableizer-table {  border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif  font-size: 12px; }  .tableizer-table td {  padding: 4px;  margin: 3px;  border: 1px solid #ccc; } .tableizer-table th {  background-color: #104E8B;   color: #FFF;  font-weight: bold; } </style>
<table class="tableizer-table"><tbody><tr class="tableizer-firstrow"><th>Team</th><th>Conf</th><th>2014</th><th>Rnk</th><th>2015</th><th>Rnk</th><th>2016</th><th>Rnk</th></tr><tr><td>Villanova</td><td>BE</td><td>25.98</td><td>22</td><td>31.27</td><td>16</td><td>24.17</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Georgetown</td><td>BE</td><td>15.82</td><td>69</td><td>25.82</td><td>28</td><td>25.66</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Providence</td><td>BE</td><td>17.50</td><td>54</td><td>22.68</td><td>40</td><td>11.48</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Xavier</td><td>BE</td><td>14.63</td><td>81</td><td>21.78</td><td>44</td><td>24.83</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>St. John's</td><td>BE</td><td>15.15</td><td>76</td><td>19.14</td><td>51</td><td>4.39</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Butler</td><td>BE</td><td>9.28</td><td>147</td><td>18.68</td><td>55</td><td>9.12</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Seton Hall</td><td>BE</td><td>11.40</td><td>110</td><td>14.74</td><td>78</td><td>19.80</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Marquette</td><td>BE</td><td>12.36</td><td>101</td><td>12.66</td><td>93</td><td>8.54</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Creighton</td><td>BE</td><td>24.47</td><td>27</td><td>11.18</td><td>108</td><td>5.31</td><td>143</td></tr><tr><td>DePaul</td><td>BE</td><td>5.59</td><td></td><td>6.08</td><td></td><td>5.82</td><td>133</td></tr></tbody></table>
</div><div>

</div>

Source: Value Add projects MU 93rd; Burton 36% chance at NBA

MU82

Quote from: CrackedSidewalksSays on August 18, 2014, 12:45:09 AM
Before I throw up a white flag I should note that the Value Add projections are just an estimate based on the average improvement each player has between seasons, and in fact individual improvement varies wildly when you are talking about college kids. ... The other good news is the players considering Marquette ...

The best news is that games aren't played in a computer program but on a basketball court!
"It's not how white men fight." - Tucker Carlson

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington

murara1994

The other good news is the players considering Marquette - for example, a signing of Diamond Stone alone would propel Marquette to 5th in the Big East and 60th in the country for 2016

^^Except we all know that ain't happening.

Silkk the Shaka

Quote from: murara1994 on August 18, 2014, 09:35:40 AM
The other good news is the players considering Marquette - for example, a signing of Diamond Stone alone would propel Marquette to 5th in the Big East and 60th in the country for 2016

^^Except we all know that ain't happening.

Replace the name Stone with Ellenson and the same probably holds.

GGGG

#4
Wow for last year, this was remarkably consistent with how the standings ended up.

Team (VA Projection) (Place)

Villanova (1) (1)
Creighton (2) (2)
Providence (3) (3)
Georgetown (4) (7)
St. Johns (5) (5)
Xavier (6) (4)
Marquette (7) (6)
Seton Hall (8) (8)
Butler (9) (9)
DePaul (10) (10)

So really the only team that did vastly different than your VA prediction was Georgetown, whose poor performance kicked some teams up a spot.  Xavier, SJU and Providence tied for third so the differences there are not terribly significant.

So yeah, this doesn't portend very well for Marquette this year does it.  

tower912

The Value Add projected MU to finish 6th last year?    Huh.   
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

mu03eng

Quote from: tower912 on August 18, 2014, 11:15:11 AM
The Value Add projected MU to finish 6th last year?    Huh.   

Wait it did?  That is very perplexing.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

GGGG

Quote from: tower912 on August 18, 2014, 11:15:11 AM
The Value Add projected MU to finish 6th last year?    Huh.   


Actually they were predicted to finish 7th.  Georgetown's underperformance is what pushed MU up to 6th.

So *if I understand the data correctly,* Marquette performed about as expected relative to the other BE schools last year.

Lennys Tap

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 18, 2014, 11:24:26 AM

Actually they were predicted to finish 7th.  Georgetown's underperformance is what pushed MU up to 6th.

So *if I understand the data correctly,* Marquette performed about as expected relative to the other BE schools last year.

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.

GGGG

Yeah, well I am not sure I am understanding the data correctly.  But I think last year's predictions were based on people "stepping up" to levels they couldn't quite reach.  It most certainly is a cautionary tale for this year given what some people's expectations might be.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the NIT would be a satisfactory outcome for this year.

mu03eng

Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 18, 2014, 11:42:20 AM
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 think you overestimate the willingness of some to accept a somewhat complex statistical premise.

I can't seem to find the link to the older data, but it would be interesting to see what the forecast for the individuals were last season and then what they turned out to be.  Especially given that MU performed to the value add "expectations".

My sense is that Derrick and Jamil vastly underperformed what was anticipated(previous performance plus growth), Davante and Chris were close to forecast and the only overachiever was Burton.  But from a math standpoint, if Jamil and Derrick were as bad as we think, multiple players had to overperform expectations for the team to just meet expectations.  I'd like to know who those folks are.

Also, something that is interesting in the analysis, or should be....you could point to Burton outperforming his expectations so he should have gotten more minutes.  That could have been true but there is nothing to suggest increasing his usage would have increased the team performance.  Increased usage could lead to decreased efficiency.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

GGGG

Quote from: mu03eng on August 18, 2014, 12:06:10 PM
I think you overestimate the willingness of some to accept a somewhat complex statistical premise.


"NNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Canned Goods n Ammo

Listen up nerds,

There is no stat to account for Buzz's insane substitution pattern with Dawson. Anybody who has played the sport at a high level knows that Buzz ruined JJJ and Dawson with his crazy substitution patterns.

Apparently you guys have never played high level ball, and can't recognize these facts. Yes, these are FACTS that I have presented.

Have fun on your computers.

Lennys Tap

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".

mu03eng

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 18, 2014, 12:10:55 PM

"NNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I resemble that remark
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

TAMU, Knower of Ball

Quote from: Canned Goods n Ammo on August 18, 2014, 12:15:12 PM
Listen up nerds,

There is no stat to account for Buzz's insane substitution pattern with Dawson. Anybody who has played the sport at a high level knows that Buzz ruined JJJ and Dawson with his crazy substitution patterns.

Apparently you guys have never played high level ball, and can't recognize these facts. Yes, these are FACTS that I have presented.

Have fun on your computers.

It's still early but I think you win scoop for the day.
Quote from: Goose on January 15, 2023, 08:43:46 PM
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


Dr. Blackheart

And Georgetown underperformed because Buzz "discovered" Todd Mayo and Steve Taylor in MU's two victories

GGGG

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on August 18, 2014, 01:54:50 PM
And Georgetown underperformed because Buzz "discovered" Todd Mayo and Steve Taylor in MU's two victories


And you raise a good point here.  I don't have the time (nor the desire) to do this, but how did Marquette's players perform to their Value Add statistics last year?  Hypothetically, some could have performed less than the model anticipated, and some more.  Could they have had better results playing more of the latter?  I don't know enough about the model.

I really don't want to this to become another debate about who should have played more.  Really my only point was that the expectations for last year's team were inflated when compared to the level at which they reasonably could perform.   And that we should use that as a cautionary tale for this year as well.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 18, 2014, 02:01:47 PM

And you raise a good point here.  I don't have the time (nor the desire) to do this, but how did Marquette's players perform to their Value Add statistics last year?  Hypothetically, some could have performed less than the model anticipated, and some more.  Could they have had better results playing more of the latter?  I don't know enough about the model.

I really don't want to this to become another debate about who should have played more.  Really my only point was that the expectations for last year's team were inflated when compared to the level at which they reasonably could perform.   And that we should use that as a cautionary tale for this every year as well.

FIFY
Quote from: Goose on January 15, 2023, 08:43:46 PM
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


tower912

Second question.   Is there a way to factor  the VA statistics with Blue, McKay and DuWilson added in?    In other words, according to value added, how much better would MU have been with those 3?
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

Lennys Tap

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on August 18, 2014, 01:54:50 PM
And Georgetown underperformed because Buzz "discovered" Todd Mayo and Steve Taylor in MU's two victories

And Magic Dawesome in one.

mu03eng

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on August 18, 2014, 02:01:47 PM

And you raise a good point here.  I don't have the time (nor the desire) to do this, but how did Marquette's players perform to their Value Add statistics last year?  Hypothetically, some could have performed less than the model anticipated, and some more.  Could they have had better results playing more of the latter?  I don't know enough about the model.

I really don't want to this to become another debate about who should have played more.  Really my only point was that the expectations for last year's team were inflated when compared to the level at which they reasonably could perform.   And that we should use that as a cautionary tale for this year as well.

I like this even more than when I said it  ;)

It would add credibility if John compared beginning of the year prediction to end of the year actuals for each year.  Like I said before, if Derrick and Jamil vastly underperformed like we all think, than several players had to wildly overperform for the team to finish at the predicted level.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Canned Goods n Ammo

Quote from: mu03eng on August 18, 2014, 04:11:30 PM
I like this even more than when I said it  ;)

It would add credibility if John compared beginning of the year prediction to end of the year actuals for each year.  Like I said before, if Derrick and Jamil vastly underperformed like we all think, than several players had to wildly overperform for the team to finish at the predicted level.

Also, because basketball is a team sport, if Jamil had a great year, arguably, the PG & SG spots might not have been as painful as they were.

You can have a defensive/pass first/no shoot PG, but you better have weapons at the other 4 spots. On the flip side, having a non-scoring PG can put a lot of pressure on the other 4 to produce, especially to keep the floor spread.

Jake was a nice role player, but MU was asking him to do a lot last year, and I think it led to some inefficiency and over-exposure.

The Equalizer

Quote from: mu03eng on August 18, 2014, 04:11:30 PM
I like this even more than when I said it  ;)

It would add credibility if John compared beginning of the year prediction to end of the year actuals for each year.  Like I said before, if Derrick and Jamil vastly underperformed like we all think, than several players had to wildly overperform for the team to finish at the predicted level.

Its easy enough to calculate.

He includes a historical database, so we have access to 2013 actuals. 
He's identified the average year-over-year improvement (102% for rising frosh, 31% for sophs, 18% for juniors).

Therefore, we can calculate what each player would have been expected to be for 2014 if they were average.  I thought it would be interesting to include the 2014 actual value-add, per the database.

   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   

Even accounting for the likely error in data (I don't think for all the criticism directed at Derrick Wilson that he truly is a zero Value Add), there was a bigger problem last year than merely playing to expectations.




mu03eng

Quote from: The Equalizer on August 18, 2014, 04:54:34 PM
Its easy enough to calculate.

He includes a historical database, so we have access to 2013 actuals. 
He's identified the average year-over-year improvement (102% for rising frosh, 31% for sophs, 18% for juniors).

Therefore, we can calculate what each player would have been expected to be for 2014 if they were average.  I thought it would be interesting to include the 2014 actual value-add, per the database.

   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   

Even accounting for the likely error in data (I don't think for all the criticism directed at Derrick Wilson that he truly is a zero Value Add), there was a bigger problem last year than merely playing to expectations.





What are the actual value adds for the freshman and what is the "average" value add that John assumes for his model?
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Previous topic - Next topic