collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'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 NCAA Tournament Thread by JakeBarnes
[Today at 06:33:07 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by TSmith34, Inc.
[Today at 06:31:06 PM]


Where is Marquette? by GoldenWarrior11
[Today at 06:28:57 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by JakeBarnes
[Today at 06:18:19 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by the eagle
[Today at 06:05:16 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by MuMark
[Today at 04:40:13 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 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 register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: Nice MUBB Preview  (Read 13316 times)

Its DJOver

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2018, 12:00:44 PM »
I think it is optimistic, if Heldt and Anim are still starting when the Big East season starts. My optimistic view is that neither will be starting and we will be better than 26. I want to believe the newcomers are good enough to change the starting line up.

What newcomer do you think will start over Matt?

Newsdreams

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9564
  • Goal - Win BE
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2018, 12:02:37 PM »
I think it is optimistic, if Heldt and Anim are still starting when the Big East season starts. My optimistic view is that neither will be starting and we will be better than 26. I want to believe the newcomers are good enough to change the starting line up.

Starting no matta, hey?
Goal is National Championship

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2018, 12:14:42 PM »
What newcomer do you think will start over Matt?
Not a newcomer, but it could be John. Otherwise Morrow or even Joey, if we do not go with a traditional center. I believe we are going to be good, because I am hoping at least two of Bailey, Morrow and Joey are going to change the lineup.

Its DJOver

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2018, 12:23:05 PM »
Not a newcomer, but it could be John. Otherwise Morrow or even Joey, if we do not go with a traditional center. I believe we are going to be good, because I am hoping at least two of Bailey, Morrow and Joey are going to change the lineup.

Thanks for clarifying. I think Theo would be the only other candidate.  While we may go small ball at times, I can't see a scenario where we would start a game that way, possible exception being a cupcake when Wojo is tinkering.  I also think we see less small ball than many here are anticipating, especially if Theo becomes more disciplined defensively and keeps his fouls per 40 down.

Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9022
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2018, 12:28:05 PM »
FWIW, going by Pomeroy's numbers, 0.95 ppp would've ranked us between 15-28 in the nation (depending on the next decimal) last year and top-50 in any of the past 5 years.

You’re comparing apples & oranges (ok, more like two types of apples).  The .95 is based on actual possession data - you’re comparing to KenPom figures that were adjusted for projection purposes.

A true comp w/b 13-17 last year in raw data.
Thanks for ruining summer, Canada.

Silkk the Shaka

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2018, 12:29:57 PM »
Starting no matta, hey?

Agreed, but who gets the most minutes does. And as long as that's Chartouny, Markus, Sam, Joey, and Morrow, we should be an excellent team.

NWarsh

  • Scholarship Player
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2018, 12:40:46 PM »
FWIW, going by Pomeroy's numbers, 0.95 ppp would've ranked us between 15-28 in the nation (depending on the next decimal) last year and top-50 in any of the past 5 years.

What were the offensive numbers like for those same breakdowns?

Floorslapper

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2018, 12:49:42 PM »
Wondering why you think this?  Based on Wojo's history I would be shocked in a huge jump in defense and would be shocked, with this roster composition, if we are not Top 10 in offense. I can see an improvement on defense in the rankings, but a huge one would be a shock. I also don't see your shock prognostication on offense where everyone returns but Drew and Harry.

Think it is plausible our offense this year does take a step back into the 30s-40s.  As I recall, Rowsey turned in the 2nd best season at MU since 2000 next to D-Wade as it related to Offensive Efficiency.

Andrew made the game a lot easier for his teammates - created major floor spacing, which helped Howard and Hauser.  His shot making and ability to get to FT Line were huge.  Strong assist rate too.  Add all that up, and you have a BIG hole to plug on the O-end.

Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9022
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2018, 12:53:35 PM »
Think it is plausible our offense this year does take a step back into the 30s-40s.  As I recall, Rowsey turned in the 2nd best season at MU since 2000 next to D-Wade as it related to Offensive Efficiency.

#FakeNews
#Lies

wat??
Thanks for ruining summer, Canada.

We R Final Four

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6585
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2018, 02:02:06 PM »
Wondering why you think this?  Based on Wojo's history I would be shocked in a huge jump in defense and would be shocked, with this roster composition, if we are not Top 10 in offense. I can see an improvement on defense in the rankings, but a huge one would be a shock. I also don't see your shock prognostication on offense where everyone returns but Drew and Harry.
I was referring to Eng statement of a minimum top 50 D. If that’s the case (I don’t think it will be that high) there will be a monumental shift in focus and energy on D. If that were to happen I find it highly unlikely that we would maintain a top 10 Off.
We are not the ‘96 Packers who are great at everything.

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2018, 03:08:18 PM »
Our roster could not defend against the national champions. I am just wondering how much the 3 Villanova games skewed the numbers?

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13006
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2018, 03:15:30 PM »
I was referring to Eng statement of a minimum top 50 D. If that’s the case (I don’t think it will be that high) there will be a monumental shift in focus and energy on D. If that were to happen I find it highly unlikely that we would maintain a top 10 Off.
We are not the ‘96 Packers who are great at everything.

Thanks. I have started working on a meta analysis using Pomeroy data to test some the Scoop hypotheses. 

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2018, 04:52:26 PM »
Our roster could not defend against the national champions. I am just wondering how much the 3 Villanova games skewed the numbers?

Our two worst games were against Villanova, but our defense was bad against Purdue, Xavier, and Butler (among others). I don't think those games skewed it that much.

Think it is plausible our offense this year does take a step back into the 30s-40s.  As I recall, Rowsey turned in the 2nd best season at MU since 2000 next to D-Wade as it related to Offensive Efficiency.

I echo what Jay Bee said. What are you talking about? Sam had a better offensive efficiency than Rowsey in that same season. Travis Diener, Steve Novak, Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, Davante Gardner, and Markus Howard all had seasons with a better offensive efficiency than Rowsey did last year. Further, Wade wasn't even that good in that regard. I mean, he had a great season, but all of those guys listed above had higher efficiency numbers and Wade didn't even lead the 2003 team in offensive efficiency (and would've been fourth on the 2018 team had 2003 Wade put up the same numbers last yaer).

Very bizarre statement.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2018, 05:35:53 PM »
#FakeNews
#Lies

wat??

I echo what Jay Bee said. What are you talking about? Sam had a better offensive efficiency than Rowsey in that same season. Travis Diener, Steve Novak, Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, Davante Gardner, and Markus Howard all had seasons with a better offensive efficiency than Rowsey did last year. Further, Wade wasn't even that good in that regard. I mean, he had a great season, but all of those guys listed above had higher efficiency numbers and Wade didn't even lead the 2003 team in offensive efficiency (and would've been fourth on the 2018 team had 2003 Wade put up the same numbers last yaer).

Very bizarre statement.

I think he might have meant offensive win shares. Rowdy's 4.7 were 3rd in the Big East and 9th in the country. Not sure how that compares to former Marquette players but they were actually higher than  Wade's.

Yes Rowsey's departure is a huge hit on the offensive end. So much of a hit that I think our offense does take a few steps back....to like #18 or #20 from #12. His impact on the offense is so big that I think it will be worse despite returning everyone else of significance and bringing in JC, Morrow, Joey, BB, and Ike. Just not that much worse. The jump on the defensive end should be much steeper and result in a highly rated team.
TAMU

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


Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13006
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2018, 11:45:44 PM »
1. Read the quote in the first post. No Rowdy = addition by subtraction on defense

2. JC = Addition by addition on defense

3. Wojo had average defenses his first two seasons.  It wasn't until Rowdy and Howard joined up that the defenses tanked.

I think there is strong evidence that this is much more of a personnel issue than a scheme issue.

I think we overestimate the import of just height when looking at personal data, especially when looking at these factors singularly. This is the inherent problem with Big Data.

While height is important on defense, the relative importance (aka, match-ups) is one of the smaller contributions versus the national average. Meanwhile, other factors including style of play are much larger factors on the margins. One needs to look at these factors multiplicatively.

Here is a teaser:  Opponent assist rate, our 2Foul Participation Rate (how we have to sit our starters like Luke), Home Court, our rebounding, foul rates, two point distribution yield, and style of defense are much larger statistically sensitiive factors in my models.

Btw, the Wino's height over Drewski gets MU to a 103 AdJ D. Good for a 129 rank last year. Ed will get us further. Under 50?  We are talking PowerBall lucky.

Also your reference to the Wojo Derrick Wilson PF on the back of the 2-3 zone years creates a caution considering the shot clock and foul focus changes since then.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2018, 12:21:40 AM »
I think we overestimate the import of just height when looking at personal data, especially when looking at these factors singularly. This is the inherent problem with Big Data.

While height is important on defense, the relative importance (aka, match-ups) is one of the smaller contributions versus the national average. Meanwhile, other factors including style of play are much larger factors on the margins. One needs to look at these factors multiplicatively.

Here is a teaser:  Opponent assist rate, our 2Foul Participation Rate (how we have to sit our starters like Luke), Home Court, our rebounding, foul rates, two point distribution yield, and style of defense are much larger statistically sensitiive factors in my models.

Btw, the Wino's height over Drewski gets MU to a 103 AdJ D. Good for a 129 rank last year. Ed will get us further. Under 50?  We are talking PowerBall lucky.

Also your reference to the Wojo Derrick Wilson PF on the back of the 2-3 zone years creates a caution considering the shot clock and foul focus changes since then.

I'll be honest, my optimism for defensive improvement has little to do with height. My optimism is because Rowsey was the worst defensive starter in modern Marquette history and he is being replaced by a good defender.

I look forward to reading whatever you put out, it sounds more in depth than I have ever gone. My statistical ability is limited...but this sounds pretty good to me:

Rowsey + Howard together: 1,439 total defensive possessions. 1.17 dPPP
Rowsey on, Howard off: 522 total defensive possessions, 1.05 dPPP
Howard on, Rowsey off: 472 total defensive possessions, 0.95 dPPP

That big of shifts in dPPP are not coincidence.
TAMU

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


THRILLHO

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
    • twitter feed
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2018, 06:00:31 AM »
I think we overestimate the import of just height when looking at personal data, especially when looking at these factors singularly. This is the inherent problem with Big Data.

While height is important on defense, the relative importance (aka, match-ups) is one of the smaller contributions versus the national average. Meanwhile, other factors including style of play are much larger factors on the margins. One needs to look at these factors multiplicatively.

Here is a teaser:  Opponent assist rate, our 2Foul Participation Rate (how we have to sit our starters like Luke), Home Court, our rebounding, foul rates, two point distribution yield, and style of defense are much larger statistically sensitiive factors in my models.

Btw, the Wino's height over Drewski gets MU to a 103 AdJ D. Good for a 129 rank last year. Ed will get us further. Under 50?  We are talking PowerBall lucky.

Also your reference to the Wojo Derrick Wilson PF on the back of the 2-3 zone years creates a caution considering the shot clock and foul focus changes since then.

My internal model is that height is not that important at the individual level -- one short guy will be on average a little bit worse than a taller guy with the same effort, athleticism, etc., and only hurts your team D a little bit. But when you have 2 short guys, it hurts your team more than just the sum of the individual losses, because it affects your ability to scheme around the short guy. Say you have 3 players, roughly, playing guard spot, a,b,c on offense, x,y,z on defense (in order of height). There are 6 possible defensive matchups (axbycz, axbzcy, aybxcz, aybzcx, azbxcy, azbycx),  If you have 1 short defender (x), probably 2 of the matchups have catastrophic height mismatches (whenever x guards c) and 2 more have smaller mismatches (x guards b). If you have 2 short players (x,y), 4 matchups have catastrophic height mismatches, and the other 2 still have some mismatch. Then the offense has to do less work to get a favorable mismatch, and the defense is trying to avoid a catastrophic matchups rather than preserving a good one. That could be why, in TAMU's stats, even though the team D was statistically "good" when only Markus is out there, adding him to Rowsey makes things even worse. Does that make any sense?

PaintTouches

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2018, 09:43:23 AM »
My optimism is because Rowsey was the worst defensive starter in modern Marquette history and he is being replaced by a good defender.

I'm in 100% agreement with TAMU, and just wanted to add these nuggets once more, for those who didn't see it on Twitter.

Rowsey gave up 1.032 PPP in 94 possessions of P&R where he was the main defender at the time of the shot. Of the 390 players who saw at least 90 possessions against P&R, Rowsey ranked 380th, worst among high major players. He was literally the worst P&R defender in MU history last season, of players getting more than 1 P&R poss. per game.

Markus is no great defender in is own right, but he gave up 52 points in 66 possessions against P&R ball handlers, .788 PPP. A rating of average, but miles ahead or Rowsey.

Chartouny only gave up .75 PPP defending P&R ball handlers (and only faced 20 poss).

There was a lot more wrong with the defense than just P&R, but it's the most basic play in the modern era and one MU simply couldn't defend because it had one of the worst P&R defenders in the country.   

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #43 on: August 09, 2018, 10:48:00 AM »
Having short guards hurt the defense, but I do not think that was the only problem. We were also weak in the center spot. Heldt was very good defensively if a player was trying to back him down. Heldt was only so so defensively if he had to rotate. John was worse and Froling was pitiful. Rowsey and Howard would of had much better defensive numbers, if they had a Jim McIlvanie type center protecting them at the center spot. Also at the end of the season Hauser was limited by his bad hip. Having a healthy Hauser should help. Having a bigger point guard should help. Having more frontcourt depth should help.  However, if we cannot greatly improve our defense when the ball gets rotated inside on us, we still will not be a great defensive team.

Floorslapper

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #44 on: August 09, 2018, 10:58:47 AM »
#FakeNews
#Lies

wat??

My bad - Perhaps it was Value Add.  I think Auburn can clarify/confirm.  The search sleuths here, I'm sure can find the stat I intended to reference.

Overarching point was, that Rowsey was extremely valuable on the O-End, and his departure will likely have a negative affect on the Offense and likely will result in a step back, despite another year of growth from Markus, Sam, et al.

Yet as has been pointed out, we will be better on D-end with no more midget ball of Rowsey/Howard.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #45 on: August 09, 2018, 11:48:19 AM »
My bad - Perhaps it was Value Add.  I think Auburn can clarify/confirm.  The search sleuths here, I'm sure can find the stat I intended to reference.

Overarching point was, that Rowsey was extremely valuable on the O-End, and his departure will likely have a negative affect on the Offense and likely will result in a step back, despite another year of growth from Markus, Sam, et al.

Yet as has been pointed out, we will be better on D-end with no more midget ball of Rowsey/Howard.

I found it. It's Auburn's offensive value add. Auburn rates Rowsey as the second most valuable offensive Marquette player since 2002. #1 is 02-03 Dwyane Wade.

1. 02-03 Dwyane Wade 10.42
2. 17-18 Andrew Rowsey 9.43
3. 17-18 Sam Hauser 8.09
4. 03-04 Travis Diener 7.43
5. 17-18 Markus Howard 7.31
6. 05-06 Steve Novak 7.27
7. 01-02 Dwyane Wade 7.16
8. 02-03 Robert Jackson 7.01
9. 09-10 Jimmy Butler 6.85
10. 01-02 Cordell Henry 6.84

Damn, 3 of the top 5 offensive seasons per this stat happened last season. I'm not sure how this stat is calculated, maybe Auburn can give us a summary.
TAMU

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


Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13006
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #46 on: August 09, 2018, 03:40:37 PM »
I will share this now as it will take me a while before I can get back to getting the models to how I want them.  This will advance the conversation while also getting feedback.

This is based on a meta database built off Pomeroy data of all NCAA teams.  The goal was to use that sample to determine what are the criteria to predict adjusted
DE. The DE metrics reported here are differences versus the national averages (sensitivity analysis) to benchmark last year's team. Positive is bad and negative is good.

- Adjusted Tempo (+0.3 to our Adj. DE). Better defensive teams play at a lower tempo.  UVA, who was the #1 defensive team, had a pace of 59.3 versus 69.5 for MU.

- Steal Rate (0.0).  MU right at average. Joe could raise this.  If MU increased their steal rate 1%, our DE would drop 0.3 points.

- Block % (-0.2). Thanks Theo. Let's keep our bigs home more.

- Opponent Assist Rate (+0.9). MU allowed more assists than norm.  Maybe because of the bad PnR defense?

-  2Foul Participation (have to sit players because of foul issues) (+0.6).  Depth will
help here but this harkens back to having to sit Luke. MU was at 31.7% last year versus a 20.1% on average. Woof. Plenty of times we had to sit starters last year. The Frosh usually did okay but let's learn to pressure without fouling or chasing needlessly.

- Home Court Rating (-1.4). Will FF help MU even more than the BC? The students in the bow tie will help.  Thanks LAX Dudes.

- Opponents OR (+0.4).  Big Ed, get to work. Big difference versus UVA.

- Opponent Shot Mix (Net: -2.2).  MU fouled more (thus, more free throws) and gave up more twos, but pressured out on the perimeter to a net overall benefit on threes. Maybe because we had to with our guards? Good strategy overall but this created other holes.

- Size (Net: +0.5). Yes our small guards hurt us, but we were also bigger on the back line. Joe could shave off 2-3 points of adjDE, though. (Btw, PF,  Center and PG height have the biggest impacts on DE).

- Opponent TO Rate (0.3). MU turned over opponents less than average when out chasing the perimeter. Let's balance the floor and double on pressure points with doubles like against Happ.

- Defensive Footprint (1.7). Pomeroy actually quantifies this (scheme). I threw it in and it stuck. MU way below average and UVA. Pick your poison.

- One note on statistical comparisons as I mentioned were the shot clock and rule changes implemented a few years ago. The best conference DE last year was Nova at 105.7. In 2015, it was 98.5 (also by Nova). A shorter time clock, reduced hand checking, the extended hoop circle and a focus on post play has increased offensive play, especially in the BE.

Cheers! Looking at the major help that Ed and Joe will provide on defense.  What scheme adjustments will Wojo make? 

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2018, 03:52:10 PM »
I will share this now as it will take me a while before I can get back to getting the models to how I want them.  This will advance the conversation while also getting feedback.

This is based on a meta database built off Pomeroy data of all NCAA teams.  The goal was to use that sample to determine what are the criteria to predict adjusted
DE. The DE metrics reported here are differences versus the national averages (sensitivity analysis) to benchmark last year's team. Positive is bad and negative is good.

- Adjusted Tempo (+0.3 to our Adj. DE). Better defensive teams play at a lower tempo.  UVA, who was the #1 defensive team, had a pace of 59.3 versus 69.5 for MU.

- Steal Rate (0.0).  MU right at average. Joe could raise this.  If MU increased their steal rate 1%, our DE would drop 0.3 points.

- Block % (-0.2). Thanks Theo. Let's keep our bigs home more.

- Opponent Assist Rate (+0.9). MU allowed more assists than norm.  Maybe because of the bad PnR defense?

-  2Foul Participation (have to sit players because of foul issues) (+0.6).  Depth will
help here but this harkens back to having to sit Luke. MU was at 31.7% last year versus a 20.1% on average. Woof. Plenty of times we had to sit starters last year. The Frosh usually did okay but let's learn to pressure without fouling or chasing needlessly.

- Home Court Rating (-1.4). Will FF help MU even more than the BC? The students in the bow tie will help.  Thanks LAX Dudes.

- Opponents OR (+0.4).  Big Ed, get to work. Big difference versus UVA.

- Opponent Shot Mix (Net: -2.2).  MU fouled more (thus, more free throws) and gave up more twos, but pressured out on the perimeter to a net overall benefit on threes. Maybe because we had to with our guards? Good strategy overall but this created other holes.

- Size (Net: +0.5). Yes our small guards hurt us, but we were also bigger on the back line. Joe could shave off 2-3 points of adjDE, though. (Btw, PF,  Center and PG height have the biggest impacts on DE).

- Opponent TO Rate (0.3). MU turned over opponents less than average when out chasing the perimeter. Let's balance the floor and double on pressure points with doubles like against Happ.

- Defensive Footprint (1.7). Pomeroy actually quantifies this (scheme). I threw it in and it stuck. MU way below average and UVA. Pick your poison.

- One note on statistical comparisons as I mentioned were the shot clock and rule changes implemented a few years ago. The best conference DE last year was Nova at 105.7. In 2015, it was 98.5 (also by Nova). A shorter time clock, reduced hand checking, the extended hoop circle and a focus on post play has increased offensive play, especially in the BE.

Cheers! Looking at the major help that Ed and Joe will provide on defense.  What scheme adjustments will Wojo make?

Thanks Dr. B. A lot to sift through. The only point I'm lost on this bolded. How does one quantify scheme?

Also, you mention a lot about how new players will help. How about how removing a terrible defensive player will help?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 03:57:24 PM by TAMU Eagle »
TAMU

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


Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13006
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2018, 04:14:00 PM »
Thanks Dr. B. A lot to sift through. The only point I'm lost on this bolded. How does one quantify scheme?

Also, you mention a lot about how new players will help. How about how removing a terrible defensive player will help?

It's behind the paywall and he is a bit coy with the algorithm behind it, but he has come up with a coding schema to classify a defensive footprint that is parametrically based. I struggled a bit with it to include it but I settled on leaving it in with not knowing the exact math. The statistical relationship holds and we debate this often so I throw it in and it stuck. MU plays a "mixed man" defense which makes sense with the base man and zone trap Wojo threw out there.

https://kenpom.com/blog/defensive-fingerprint/

Floorslapper

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: Nice MUBB Preview
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2018, 04:46:02 PM »
I found it. It's Auburn's offensive value add. Auburn rates Rowsey as the second most valuable offensive Marquette player since 2002. #1 is 02-03 Dwyane Wade.

1. 02-03 Dwyane Wade 10.42
2. 17-18 Andrew Rowsey 9.43
3. 17-18 Sam Hauser 8.09
4. 03-04 Travis Diener 7.43
5. 17-18 Markus Howard 7.31
6. 05-06 Steve Novak 7.27
7. 01-02 Dwyane Wade 7.16
8. 02-03 Robert Jackson 7.01
9. 09-10 Jimmy Butler 6.85
10. 01-02 Cordell Henry 6.84

Damn, 3 of the top 5 offensive seasons per this stat happened last season. I'm not sure how this stat is calculated, maybe Auburn can give us a summary.

Thanks TAMU.

Pretty incredible that last season we had 3 of the Top 5 Value Add seasons in MU ball since 2002.  Was a real shame to miss the tournament with that kind of Offensive talent. 

Sure is going to be an interesting season ahead.  Major upgrade defensively with Chardonnay, but we also have a major downgrade offensively with the loss of Andrew.