Great article from SI this morning on MU

[muguru]

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/02/19/marquette-beats-xavier-ncaa-tournament-bubble-chances?xid=socialflow_twitter_si

[Jay Bee]

" So the group of Jake Fischer, JaJuan Johnson and Hannif Cheatham would not add another start to the 72 they'd combined to compile this season."

0-for-3 on the names... great job!

[Newsdreams]

" So the group of Jake Fischer, JaJuan Johnson and Hannif Cheatham would not add another start to the 72 they'd combined to compile this season."

0-for-3 on the names... great job!

Read scoop before writing yhe article

[rocket surgeon]

" So the group of Jake Fischer, JaJuan Johnson and Hannif Cheatham would not add another start to the 72 they'd combined to compile this season."

0-for-3 on the names... great job!

they must have seen your post jay and corrected it-

     "So the group of Luke Fischer, JaJuan Johnson and Hannif Cheatham would not add another start to the 72 they'd combined to compile this season. "

[Jay Bee]

they must have seen your post jay and corrected it-

     "So the group of Luke Fischer, JaJuan Johnson and Hannif Cheatham would not add another start to the 72 they'd combined to compile this season. "

Now they just need to fix Jajuan and Haanif!

[vogue65]

The article speaks to me that metrics are suspect.  That is why they play the games.
Also, I  find it interesting that our numbers guys have been conspicuously absent from the board.

Sometimes the more data one has the more confusion and static you have to deal with.  I  repeat, the style of officiating is a very significant variable which is not facrored into the algorithms. 

If metrics were so accurate there would be no need for scouts or going to watch recruits.  Intangiables are more important than easily quantified stats.  Stats are only one factor of potential.

[WarriorFan]

Nice article.  Nice to get a bit of national press and respect. 

[wadesworld]

The article speaks to me that metrics are suspect.  That is why they play the games.
Also, I  find it interesting that our numbers guys have been conspicuously absent from the board.

Sometimes the more data one has the more confusion and static you have to deal with.  I  repeat, the style of officiating is a very significant variable which is not facrored into the algorithms. 

If metrics were so accurate there would be no need for scouts or going to watch recruits.  Intangiables are more important than easily quantified stats.  Stats are only one factor of potential.

This is a weird rant.

[vogue65]

This is a weird rant.

Thanks friend, I  think you are pretty weired also.

[wadesworld]

Thanks friend, I  think you are pretty weired also.

Didn't say you were weird.  Just said it was a weird rant.  Nowhere in the article, nor on this thread, are referees discussed.  BeeJay's really the only poster who obsesses over the metrics, and he's been just as active as he always is lately.  And I'd say the data is very, very important.  It's why there are full time statisticians at just about every level of college and professional athletics on just about every team at those levels.  Many times, those statisticians don't even have any kind of background in whatever sport they are working in, they are simply very good with numbers.

[LloydsLegs]

JB was literally the poster before you in this thread.  Absent?  And in every game thread (and countless others), including the X game, JB expounds on the virtues of analytics (or, at least uses numbers to illustrate his point).

[vogue65]

Didn't say you were weird.  Just said it was a weird rant.  Nothing in the article, nor on this thread, are referees discussed.  BeeJay's really the only poster who obsesses over the metrics, and he's been just as active as he always is lately.  And I'd say the data is very, very important.  It's why there are full time statisticians at just about every level of college and professional athletics on just about every team at those levels.  Many times, those statisticians don't even have any kind of background in whatever sport they are working in, they are simply very good with numbers.

Sounds like a defensive rant to me.  I know you did not call me weird,  sorry for my snarky responses.

I am very familiar with statistics and also somewhat familiar with sports statistics.

The article discussed the conundrum of MU performance not correlating with the statistics.  I get it.
They are at the point where statistics ends and intuition, creativity, and intangeables takes over. 

In this particular game our coach benches a star, starts a new 5 players, X has two starters out, the refs run a tight ship and the game plans were unique, how do you model that?

Sports statistecs has a place, MU has/had 8 statisticians on board ( I  asked that question at my 50th reunion tour of tha A.M. Center last year '65).  They model all the intercolegite sports.  A friend of mine, a recent graduate of a prestigious college, a stat. major, was recently in Milwaukee with a  former classmate of his, a stat. guy for the Bucks, I  get it.

The question in my view is, why does MU performance not conform to the metrics???

My short answer is that we don't have the relevant data.  I hope that was not a rant.

[Jay Bee]

The article discussed the conundrum of MU performance not correlating with the statistics.  I get it.

They are at the point where statistics ends and intuition, creativity, and intangeables takes over. 
The question in my view is, why does MU performance not conform to the metrics???

My short answer is that we don't have the relevant data.  I hope that was not a rant.

You're being way too literal and giving the author too much credit. When he's talking "metrics", he's saying it's amazing to him that we beat Nova and then we lose a bunch of games. He also is saying we held X to a low ppp.

We have the relevant data and the facts are this: We have a power offense and bad defense. We held X to a relatively low ppp because they shot 2/17 from 3-point range. 3-point shooting is volatile and that's what made our defense "good" last night.

Marquette trends a little bit unlucky in the Win-Loss column because we've lost some close ones. Nothing overly unusual, though.

The stats are pretty easy to read: MU usually has to shoot very well in order to win games. Whichever team shoots better has won every single game this season.  Is that really a tough one to read? We shoot better, we win. We shoot worse, we lose. Has happened in EVERY SINGLE GAME this season.

EXCEPT FOR LAST NIGHT, we're 0-8 when we shoot under (a very good, by the way) 52.5% eFG%. Fortunately, X didn't shoot well from deep last night, they had early trouble with turnovers, and didn't rebound as well as normal and so we won despite shooting "only" 50.8%, which by the way is higher than the national average.

The metrics and our performance are in line with what we expected. As stated in the preseason, MU should target a turnover differential improvement and eFG% differential improvement -- for eFG%, I said a 5.6% differential on eFG% would mean good things for us.. we're at 4.7%, and nearing that mark, and that's why we've exceeded preseason projections of the masses (7th to 8th place). We'll see where things come down as of year end...

But.. overall, the metrics do tell the story and it's not difficult to read that.

More than anything, the SI's comment was the easy one.. "wow, beat #1 Nova then lost some games they seem like they should have won"

[mileskishnish72]

Yes, a bad job on the names, but actually not a badly-written article. Characterizes the up-and-down year this has been and recognizes how badly we want to dance.

[vogue65]

You're being way too literal and giving the author too much credit. When he's talking "metrics", he's saying it's amazing to him that we beat Nova and then we lose a bunch of games. He also is saying we held X to a low ppp.

We have the relevant data and the facts are this: We have a power offense and bad defense. We held X to a relatively low ppp because they shot 2/17 from 3-point range. 3-point shooting is volatile and that's what made our defense "good" last night.

Marquette trends a little bit unlucky in the Win-Loss column because we've lost some close ones. Nothing overly unusual, though.

The stats are pretty easy to read: MU usually has to shoot very well in order to win games. Whichever team shoots better has won every single game this season.  Is that really a tough one to read? We shoot better, we win. We shoot worse, we lose. Has happened in EVERY SINGLE GAME this season.

EXCEPT FOR LAST NIGHT, we're 0-8 when we shoot under (a very good, by the way) 52.5% eFG%. Fortunately, X didn't shoot well from deep last night, they had early trouble with turnovers, and didn't rebound as well as normal and so we won despite shooting "only" 50.8%, which by the way is higher than the national average.

The metrics and our performance are in line with what we expected. As stated in the preseason, MU should target a turnover differential improvement and eFG% differential improvement -- for eFG%, I said a 5.6% differential on eFG% would mean good things for us.. we're at 4.7%, and nearing that mark, and that's why we've exceeded preseason projections of the masses (7th to 8th place). We'll see where things come down as of year end...

But.. overall, the metrics do tell the story and it's not difficult to read that.

More than anything, the SI's comment was the easy one.. "wow, beat #1 Nova then lost some games they seem like they should have won"

You win, its all in the numbers.  The numbers are like the tea leaves, one sees what one wants to see.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You win, its all in the numbers.  The numbers are like the tea leaves, one sees what one wants to see.

The numbers tell us why we won or why we lost. They aren't predictive. They can't tell you why we will win or why we will lose. They can tell you that we will likely win if we do X. But the game still has to be played.