Jump to content

The 2019-20 College Basketball Season (non-IU)


5fouls

Recommended Posts

@IU Scott I agree that we need to bring back the mid-range at IU. Both because I think offensive aesthetics should count and because I believe removing it from the repertoire is a misuse of analytics... plus the way our team shoots the 3. The first team to realize this misuse and re-exploit the mid-range will have a slight advantage.

Unfortunately, in baseball, I think analytics will continue to make the game ugly. I would love to go back to having quality starter have 20+ complete games a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Another thing about the selection committee using analytics I think it hurts the really good mid major program who has a great record.  The analytics will tell you a team who finishes 8-12 in the big ten is better and more deserving than a 28-3 mid major team and I don't think it is right.

This year in the Big Ten? I wouldn't need to even look at a chart to say that your assumption is 50/50 at best.  A team with 5 losses in a mid-major conference that is going to have much more than that in this year's B10. 

Well....how many might they have? We can guess, or I'm assuming that someone out there has a model that is 80-85% confident that they can predict it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GaloisGroupe said:

The goal of statistical modelling is the second bullet: provide additional information. Any inferential statisticians who try for the first bullet should be barred from practice!

Nobody I know would ever have that as a realistic objective.  It's nice to dream though.  😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

This is a perfect example of a sweeping generality being misused.  As an overall trend, they are correct, and I can mathematically prove it to you.  Keep in mind, none of these first few examples will be realistic, but to help you see the objective. 

Let's assume that in a 100 possession game and all other factors being the same, I'm 50% likely to make a 3 point shot, 50% likely to make a midrange jumper and 50% likely to make a layup.  Which should I take more of? Easy, the three point shot.  My likelihood of making them are equal, and in the end, I'd score 150 points vs 100. 

Now, let's adjust that to 40% for a 3 point shot, 50% for a midrange jumper and 60% for a layup.  Again, all other things being equal, in 100 possessions, what should I do? The answer is either the 3 or the layup.  Why? Because over 100 possessions, your expected points would be 120 for either of those vs 100 for the midrange jumper. 

Now, what I'm about to say may be contradictory to you.  I believe the concept above is 100% mathematically sound.  I also believe that any coach that uses the above as gospel and does not look into it further is an idiot. 

A team's roster isn't taken into account.  The opponent isn't taken into account.  The opponent's trends (yay..more stats!) aren't taken into account. 

Maybe a team's defensive scheme defends the arc very well, and maybe they have a great shot blocker.  In this case, the likelihood of a zero point possession for a 3 attempt or a layup are higher than they normally would be.  So at this point, you're very much correct that the midrange would be effective.  Now, to what extent should I use it.....depends on my team.  Catch a team off balance and sagging back, then use the threat of the established midrange to open the three point line back up. 

I didn't lose sight of the overall principle, but I used all aspects of the game available to set the game up to be statistically in my favor.  This is the step that gets missed. 

I know the game is different but look at how many points Cheaney scored from the 15 foot baseline shot or even Henderson and Anderson.  I bet on those shots they hit at least 60% of those shots because they were open shots.  I am not saying I don't want to shoot 3's but to me the best shot is the open and uncontested shots.  I think if you are a big time college player an open 15 foot shot from the baseline or the wing should be an easy shot for you.  This year the 3 point shooting is way down and teams keeps shooting them even win they are not hitting a good percentage.

To me if you hit 6 out of 10 mid range shots and if you hit 4 out of 10 3's I would take the 6 mid range shots.  Those 2 extra missed shots can give the opponent more chance to get out on the break because a lot of those are long rebounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GaloisGroupe said:

@IU Scott I agree that we need to bring back the mid-range at IU. Both because I think offensive aesthetics should count and because I believe removing it from the repertoire is a misuse of analytics... plus the way our team shoots the 3. The first team to realize this misuse and re-exploit the mid-range will have a slight advantage.

Unfortunately, in baseball, I think analytics will continue to make the game ugly. I would love to go back to having quality starter have 20+ complete games a year.

I would love to see all of basketball use the mid range more because to me it makes for a lot more free flowing game.  I want to use all 3 levels of the half court to score and like I said the open shot is the best shot.  What we see today having to shoot way to many contested 3's at the end of the shot clock because of the way the offenses are ran today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

This year in the Big Ten? I wouldn't need to even look at a chart to say that your assumption is 50/50 at best.  A team with 5 losses in a mid-major conference that is going to have much more than that in this year's B10. 

Well....how many might they have? We can guess, or I'm assuming that someone out there has a model that is 80-85% confident that they can predict it. 

The problem with the mid majors is that the good ones can not schedule well because none of the top teams will play them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

The problem with the mid majors is that the good ones can not schedule well because none of the top teams will play them.

If only there were a way to hypothetically simulate a team's style of play and how they would likely fare against a different slate of opponents.  Hmmmm...... 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zlinedavid said:

If only there were a way to hypothetically simulate a team's style of play and how they would likely fare against a different slate of opponents.  Hmmmm...... 🤔

I have always been in favor of a team having to finish .500 or better in your conference to make the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I have always been in favor of a team having to finish .500 or better in your conference to make the tournament.

So the 2nd place team from say.....the Horizon league that might finish 23-8 (whatever and 5 in conference) deserves to go to the tournament ahead of the 7th place team in the B10, which this year finishing 9-11 isn't out of the question?

How good is that Horizon league team? What would happen if you dropped them into the meat grinder that is the 2019-20 B10? Think they'd still have that whatever and 5 record?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zlinedavid said:

So the 2nd place team from say.....the Horizon league that might finish 23-8 (whatever and 5 in conference) deserves to go to the tournament ahead of the 7th place team in the B10, which this year finishing 9-11 isn't out of the question?

How good is that Horizon league team? What would happen if you dropped them into the meat grinder that is the 2019-20 B10? Think they'd still have that whatever and 5 record?

Rather see them in the tournament than say a 18-14 Minnesota team.  Also you can't look it at that way where if you put them in the Big ten conference because that is not how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Rather see them in the tournament than say a 18-14 Minnesota team.  Also you can't look it at that way where if you put them in the Big ten conference because that is not how it works.

Sure it is.  Conference champions plus the remaining best make the tournament.  I define "remaining best" as who comes out better given equal circumstances.  The fact is that none of the remaining eligible at-large teams may have been able to come out with a winning record with that B10 team's schedule.  So now what? Give it to the other team just because they had an easier schedule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

Sure it is.  Conference champions plus the remaining best make the tournament.  I define "remaining best" as who comes out better given equal circumstances.  The fact is that none of the remaining eligible at-large teams may have been able to come out with a winning record with that B10 team's schedule.  So now what? Give it to the other team just because they had an easier schedule?

it is about proving you can actually win games against who you are playing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Correct the games are played by humans and are watched by humans so they should be determined by humans

Do you cook every meal over a fire that you started by rubbing two sticks together? No? How dare you use tools available to you when you didn't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 13th&Jackson said:

Not challenging what you're saying, but assuming all that is true, it still doesn't pass the smell test. If last year is still a major input, OSU ended 2019 #44, losers of 8 of their last 12. That should pull them down not prop them up.  Also, UNC is currently #83, 16 games in to this season. 2019 doesn't seem to be propping up their ranking, but a win over them is propping up OSU?

 

 

KenPom doesn’t use win/loss at all.

Its all based on efficiency against who and where.

There are other weird ones....Seton Hall at 12, Purdue at 16, BYU at 26. They all seem overrated.

Its far from an exact science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Rather see them in the tournament than say a 18-14 Minnesota team.  Also you can't look it at that way where if you put them in the Big ten conference because that is not how it works.

Disagree. Best teams get in. 
 

I don’t really care about Cinderella or any of that.

Its like Gonzaga being number 1 with a SOS over 200......it’s bulls***.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JugRox said:

KenPom doesn’t use win/loss at all.

Its all based on efficiency against who and where.

There are other weird ones....Seton Hall at 12, Purdue at 16, BYU at 26. They all seem overrated.

Its far from an exact science.

To be fair, explain how good Purdue is based on their results... Those two 30 point games are going to mess up almost any model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GaloisGroupe said:

To be fair, explain how good Purdue is based on their results... Those two 30 point games are going to mess up almost any model.

Exactly....

They killed two top 20 teams but have 7 losses.

Also, I think Kenpom is more of a fan thing. I don’t think it has too much weight with the selection committee.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zlinedavid said:

Do you cook every meal over a fire that you started by rubbing two sticks together? No? How dare you use tools available to you when you didn't have to.

Well I do my own cooking and not have a robot or computer cooking it for me.  You would probably like it to be like the Jetsons where their made was a robot and did everything for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, JugRox said:

Disagree. Best teams get in. 
 

I don’t really care about Cinderella or any of that.

Its like Gonzaga being number 1 with a SOS over 200......it’s bulls***.

I do care about the Cinderella because that is what makes the tournament so great.  I would rather see a UMBC as a 16th seed playing UVA than a Minnesota as a 16th seed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...