11-27-2018, 10:21 AM | #31 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 1,725
|
There might be an easier/better way to find these numbers than looking back at box scores, but that's what I did, so sorry if they are incorrect. We need to score more, plain and simple. We need to at least close the gap in free throw points because it will be a struggle for 3 pt shooting most likely all year.
Through the first 6 games: 2017-2018 3PT Shooting 13 for 39 9 for 21 12 for 29 4 for 10 13 for 24 7 for 14 58 for 137 = 42.3% 2017-2018 FT Shooting 12 for 24 27 for 34 21 for 36 27 for 35 12 for 17 9 for 14 108 for 160 = 67.5% 2018-2019 3PT Shooting 6 for 26 5 for 14 4 for 19 5 for 13 2 for 7 6 for 14 28 for 93 = 30.1% 2018-2019 FT Shooting 16 for 21 6 for 12 12 for 20 13 for 17 15 for 21 25 for 35 87 for 126 = 69.0% That's 109 more points last year's team scored in 3 point shooting and free throws alone through the first 6 games of the year. We have shot 33 more free throws than 3 pt shots this year. Last year we shot 23 more 3 pt shots than free throws, so it looks like we are really learning to shoot more free throws than 3s, so that's good. Last edited by GarradJ21; 11-27-2018 at 10:28 AM. |
11-27-2018, 10:32 AM | #32 | |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,329
|
Quote:
like i posted earlier our schedule doesn't have a lot of good defensive teams, so the hope is our defense can hold them to fewer than we can score. if teams hit a lot of tough shots though, there might not be much we can do in those games. our starting lineup still has 2 guys you dont really have to guard, and as long as you keep tre scott away from the rim you dont have to worry too much about him either (shooting 82% at the rim, 33% on all other 2 point shots). a small lineup from us is better offensively, but then we struggle to defend and rebound. |
|
11-27-2018, 11:09 AM | #33 |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,298
|
I was looking for a good plus/minus data source and in doing so stumbled on this on Sports Reference. I have been looking for actual plus/minus numbers but they have the box plus/minus which will have to do for now. Anyway...
Box Plus/Minus Yearly Leaders and Records Leaders are based on stats from the 1985-86 through 2018-19 seasons. Not all leaderboards are available for seasons prior to 1992-93. Since 2010-11 Minimum 20 MP/G and 75% of school games Season Player BPM School 2018-19 Brandon Clarke 21.61 Gonzaga 2017-18 Gary Clark 15.53 Cincinnati 2016-17 Sindarius Thornwell 16.17 South Carolina 2015-16 Denzel Valentine 16.54 Michigan State 2014-15 Karl-Anthony Towns 17.30 Kentucky 2013-14 Joel Embiid 14.94 Kansas 2012-13 Victor Oladipo 16.97 Indiana 2011-12 Anthony Davis 18.67 Kentucky 2010-11 Draymond Green 13.64 Michigan State |
11-27-2018, 11:39 AM | #34 |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,298
|
Looking around a bit more on BPM (box plus minus) on Sports Reference. Some interesting things show up.
Last year Keith Williams was last on the team in BPM. This year so far he is 1st!! Last year Jenifer was 2nd last to Williams and this year he is also 2nd last to Nsoseme. |
11-27-2018, 12:41 PM | #35 | |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,329
|
Quote:
reason being the difference in points allowed with Jenifer at pg vs anybody else isn't actually too much. but the difference on offense is noticeable. i think defensive stats are probably still rough to take at face value just like they are in baseball. too much is going on, especially with our defense, to really tell who is at fault at times. but for last year Jenifer had a DRtg of 96.3. Broome had a DRtg of 92.8. The lower the number the better, Gary Clark was at 81.6. i just think the way we play defense as a team, with brooks and scott behind them, there probably isn't much of a difference in our points allowed per 100 possessions with any of the 3 different PGs in there. |
|
11-27-2018, 12:54 PM | #36 | |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,395
|
Kenpom is not a fan of using plus-minus to evaluate players. He ran a simulation with a hypothetical average player over 50 games. In one, his plus-minus was -43. In the next it was +48. Basically, there is too much random noise that drowns out what an individual's impact is on the game score.
Quote:
|
|
11-27-2018, 01:37 PM | #37 | |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,329
|
Quote:
assuming hypothetical average player would be worth 0 over 50 games on average? |
|
11-27-2018, 01:43 PM | #38 | |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,395
|
Quote:
You can actually run a 20 game simulation yourself here: https://kenpom.com/plus-minus.php Hit refresh and it will run again. The results vary wildly from one "season" to the next. |
|
11-27-2018, 02:11 PM | #39 | |
Epic Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,329
|
Quote:
yes that is not at all surprising at all. 700 possession sample size. thats extremely small. variance is insane. do a variance simulator for a 0 winrate poker player over 200k hands. you could win or lose $7600 at a 200$ buy in table with a 95% confidence interval. looking at his experiment he had the guy out there do nothing while everybody else on the court had 3% chance of scoring 1 point, 30% chance at 2 points, 15% chance of 3 points. i dont know if thats the best experiment to run, clearly those numbers are going to go crazy running simulations. edit: not that i'd be smart enough to know how to come up with a better one |
|
11-27-2018, 02:20 PM | #40 | |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,298
|
Quote:
The overall BPM is going to therefore be weighted towards the bigs as well because the DBPM favors them. But I think we can get a pretty good general picture of a players overall worth (in terms of stats/production) by comparing guards to guards and bigs to bigs. It's definitely not as good as actual plus minus and I have no idea why nobody is tracking that anymore. |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|