|
Stats
Dec 26, 2018 10:52:20 GMT -5
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Dec 26, 2018 10:52:20 GMT -5
Much more creative and funny than how I would have put it but I was thinking essentially the same thing. If you aren't betting on the game, and especially if you are wearing glasses that have the same hue as your school colors, these are starting to get like baseball statistics, "fun" for those who come up with them but often meaningless. Once the game begins, there are so many intangibles and variables that they don't mean an awful lot. Who's hot; who's injured; who's sick; who is taking a final exam in 2 days; who just broke up with a girlfriend; etc., etc. Who would have guessed Williams could have beaten a Ralph team in the Hart Center? Agree with everything you wrote. They are especially meaningless when one considers all of the changes that have occurred over time, e.g., extending the # of games played, three point line, shot clock, designated hitter, etc.
|
|
|
Stats
Dec 26, 2018 10:55:54 GMT -5
Post by sader1970 on Dec 26, 2018 10:55:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 26, 2018 12:22:17 GMT -5
My favorite Mark Twain quote- one I used many times in business meetings:”first gather all the facts, then you may distort them as you please”
|
|
|
Stats
Dec 26, 2018 12:26:20 GMT -5
Post by sader1970 on Dec 26, 2018 12:26:20 GMT -5
KY, you would have been a very useful wingman for me at SOOO many meetings I had to participate in.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Dec 26, 2018 12:46:25 GMT -5
We also rank 330th in offensive and defensive rebounding percentage. Is being #1 in assists per FG made any more or less important than being one of the worst rebounding teams in the country with respect to winning and losing? the point is that we hear - exhaustively - about how the areas in which our program excels are meaningless. assist to turnover ratio, which is the statistic that hoops posted and upon which i commented, is unquestionably important and an area in which many of the top teams in the country excel. would you disagree? we hear every day from the same posters about how we are deficient in rebounding. this is clearly not an area of emphasis and we are one of the worst teams in the country in this regard, which obviously poses a problem. but there are also some meaningful areas in which we are strong. which explains, in part, why we are off to a strong start to the season. all of the harping on the negative without any acknowledgment of the positive makes the ceaseless negativity feel like white noise.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 26, 2018 12:51:10 GMT -5
Am I right in understanding that a team which shots 100% will have 0 offensive rebounds? Would that be a weakness? I believe that no statistic stands alone (except, of course, the final score). Interpretation can be used in many different ways.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 26, 2018 14:03:01 GMT -5
Dado, I guess my point is that if you look at teams who rank inside the top ten for pretty much any statistic, there’s a decent chance those teams will have good records. I don’t think that assists per field goals made is any more or less important than many other statistics.
For the record, I believe the two most important stats are effective FG% on the offensive and defensive end. We rank well in both of those departments (138th offensive and 128th defensive).
|
|
|
Stats
Dec 26, 2018 14:15:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 26, 2018 14:15:57 GMT -5
We also rank 330th in offensive and defensive rebounding percentage. Is being #1 in assists per FG made any more or less important than being one of the worst rebounding teams in the country with respect to winning and losing? the point is that we hear - exhaustively - about how the areas in which our program excels are meaningless. assist to turnover ratio, which is the statistic that hoops posted and upon which i commented, is unquestionably important and an area in which many of the top teams in the country excel. would you disagree? we hear every day from the same posters about how we are deficient in rebounding. this is clearly not an area of emphasis and we are one of the worst teams in the country in this regard, which obviously poses a problem. but there are also some meaningful areas in which we are strong. which explains, in part, why we are off to a strong start to the season. all of the harping on the negative without any acknowledgment of the positive makes the ceaseless negativity feel like white noise. If offensive assist-to-turnover (or offensive assist %) is the stat that you’re going to hang your hat on, and then you’re just going to ignore rebounding and give up all of the possessions that you gain by having low turnover numbers, the A:T number becomes pretty meaningless. We have beaten two teams with a winning record this year, and the play has regressed in the past three games. The relative “strength” of this start has far more to do with how dreadful the program has been under Kearney, Milan, and Carmody than on some tremendous turnaround.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 26, 2018 14:18:20 GMT -5
Am I right in understanding that a team which shots 100% will have 0 offensive rebounds? Would that be a weakness? I believe that no statistic stands alone (except, of course, the final score). Interpretation can be used in many different ways. Offensive rebounding stats are a percentage based on opportunities (missed shots or missed back-end free throws). Raw rebounding numbers that don’t account for field goal attempts & makes can become pretty meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Dec 26, 2018 14:20:01 GMT -5
For the record, I believe the two most important stats are effective FG% on the offensive and defensive end. We rank well in both of those departments (138th offensive and 128th defensive). And those like Dean Oliver and Ken Pomeroy who subscribe to the importance of the "four factors" would also note how well Holy Cross fares in TO% on both ends (taking care of the ball and taking it away from opponents respectively). EFG% and TO% are the two most important of the four factors.
|
|
|
Post by sader81 on Dec 26, 2018 14:25:35 GMT -5
There's a lot of noise here regarding the team's lack of offensive rebounds. It is frustrating to watch HC run down court after a shot goes up, and watch the rebound land in a spot where the HC player just vacated! The strategy is to prevent the other teams from scoring in transition. I've checked, and do not see a stat for fast break points, or fast break defense. HC is however ranked 67 in scoring defense, the closest stat I could find.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 26, 2018 14:29:52 GMT -5
There's a lot of noise here regarding the team's lack of offensive rebounds. It is frustrating to watch HC run down court after a shot goes up, and watch the rebound land in a spot where the HC player just vacated! The strategy is to prevent the other teams from scoring in transition. I've checked, and do not see a stat for fast break points, or fast break defense. HC is however ranked 67 in scoring defense, the closest stat I could find. Better to look at our defensive efficiency, which ranks 131at in the country. I imagine the scoring defense you’re referencing is points allowed per game. One of the reasons we allow so few points is due to playing at such a slow pace, which minimizes the number of possessions in a game.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Dec 26, 2018 14:30:58 GMT -5
There's a lot of noise here regarding the team's lack of offensive rebounds. It is frustrating to watch HC run down court after a shot goes up, and watch the rebound land in a spot where the HC player just vacated! The strategy is to prevent the other teams from scoring in transition. I've checked, and do not see a stat for fast break points, or fast break defense. HC is however ranked 67 in scoring defense, the closest stat I could find. It's not the rebounding at the offensive end that is the concern being voiced by some of us - it's the poor rebounding at the defensive end. The former is strategic; the latter is a defect.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 26, 2018 14:58:04 GMT -5
Holy Cross is outscoring their opponents in 67 percent of their games
Stats can present one piece of the puzzle. I look at approx 52 percent free throw shooting in last two games. It's not the whole picture because HC won both games, but it can still gives me concern for the long term success of this squad
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 26, 2018 14:58:23 GMT -5
I believe that the Dean Oliver and Ken Pomeroy positions on the "four factors", or other measures, are not opinions but, rather, are based on analytics that correlate these factors with winning or losing games. These guys study hundred or thousands of games and then tell you what the data say. For example, we have discussed the matter of whether to foul the other team when you are up three at the end of the game (as we saw in the Siena game) ---KenPom has studied hundreds of such situations. Of course, if you have a set opinion on the matter you can dismiss the analytics out of hand: "the analytics don't take into account the player you foul --his shooting percentage, fatigue level, altitude of the venue and arena temperature etc). I think it's always good to take advantage of such analytics-maybe be skeptical at times but not to dismiss them as worthless.
Here's an example: I've looked at the correlation between free throws made and winning. One study of PL games showed it to be a great predictor of victory, i.e. the team with more free thros made won the game more often than the team with more rebounds or fewer turnovers or more blocks, etc. However, in studying this I also bore in mind that the team that has a solid late game lead often gets fouled by its opponent desperate to get the ball back, thus driving up the free throws made by the team that ends up winning.....
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Dec 26, 2018 15:04:35 GMT -5
How many teams at our level are good at everything? Just seems like these debates will always exist in some shape or form.
|
|
|
Stats
Dec 27, 2018 10:53:36 GMT -5
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 27, 2018 10:53:36 GMT -5
We also rank 330th in offensive and defensive rebounding percentage. Is being #1 in assists per FG made any more or less important than being one of the worst rebounding teams in the country with respect to winning and losing? the point is that we hear - exhaustively - about how the areas in which our program excels are meaningless. assist to turnover ratio, which is the statistic that hoops posted and upon which i commented, is unquestionably important and an area in which many of the top teams in the country excel. would you disagree? we hear every day from the same posters about how we are deficient in rebounding. this is clearly not an area of emphasis and we are one of the worst teams in the country in this regard, which obviously poses a problem. but there are also some meaningful areas in which we are strong. which explains, in part, why we are off to a strong start to the season. all of the harping on the negative without any acknowledgment of the positive makes the ceaseless negativity feel like white noise. As SOV correctly pointed out, you can cherry pick any stat and say that the top 10 teams have good records. To try and determine how "unquestionably important" assist:turnover ratio is for these top teams that you highlight, I took a look at how they rank across the 20 key stats that KenPom team summaries highlight. Below is the overall KP rank of these teams, along with how many times they currently appear in the top 100 in these 20 KenPom stats: Team | Rank | KP in Top 100 | Virginia | 2
| 16 | Tennessee | 11 | 13 | Gonzaga | 3 | 16 | Mich St6 | 6 | 12 | TCU | 21 | 14 | Nevada | 8 | 16 | Iowa St | 17 | 16 | Wisconsin | 12 | 14 |
It's pretty clear that these teams are all in the top 21 in the country because they are good at a lot of different things. Not sure where the logic would come in that it is "unquestionably important" that they have a top assist:turnover ratio. Note: Holy Cross currently has 4 KP stats in the top 100 -- TO% Off, TO% Def, 3P% Def, Block% Def.
|
|
|
Stats
Jan 1, 2019 17:41:48 GMT -5
Post by hchoops on Jan 1, 2019 17:41:48 GMT -5
Pretty unusual that 2 of our 3 top assist leaders are the 5 man and Grandy who has played more 4 than 3, esp since Niego was hurt. Caleb leads with 53, Grandy with 50, Jehyve with 47.
|
|
|
Stats
Jan 1, 2019 18:20:41 GMT -5
mm67 likes this
Post by efg72 on Jan 1, 2019 18:20:41 GMT -5
I would like to argue that Glenn Williams is one of the best pure PG we have had in the past 50 years and few if any ever mention him-he did lead the nation his senior year with 9.9 apg which in itself is remarkable and he averaged 9.0 app his last two years
|
|
|
Stats
Jan 1, 2019 18:29:14 GMT -5
Post by possum on Jan 1, 2019 18:29:14 GMT -5
Hoops not that unusual for Carmody coached teams, has had a number of bigs at or near top of assist leaders at both Northwestern and Princeton.
|
|
|
Stats
Jan 1, 2019 18:48:08 GMT -5
Post by hchoops on Jan 1, 2019 18:48:08 GMT -5
Ok, but were 2 of the team’s 3 leaders bigs ?
|
|
|
Stats
Jan 1, 2019 19:09:20 GMT -5
mm67 likes this
Post by hchoops on Jan 1, 2019 19:09:20 GMT -5
HC has 231 assists Opponents have 148 Quite a disparity
|
|
|
Stats
Jan 1, 2019 19:14:37 GMT -5
Post by possum on Jan 1, 2019 19:14:37 GMT -5
Yes basically all his Princeton teams and some at Northwestern also
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 1, 2019 19:14:39 GMT -5
I would like to argue that Glenn Williams is one of the best pure PG we have had in the past 50 years and few if any ever mention him-he did lead the nation his senior year with 9.9 apg which in itself is remarkable and he averaged 9.0 app his last two years He started 6 fewer games than Jave, arguably played against better competition, and had a more efficient offensive game. Both he and Dwight Purcell were special and deserve more recognition than they have received
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 1, 2019 19:17:19 GMT -5
I would like to argue that Glenn Williams is one of the best pure PG we have had in the past 50 years and few if any ever mention him-he did lead the nation his senior year with 9.9 apg which in itself is remarkable and he averaged 9.0 app his last two years He started 6 fewer games than Jave, arguably played against better competition, and had a more efficient offensive game. Both he and Dwight Purcell were special and deserve more recognition than they have received I believe Lowder and Wade will remind us of their performance and contributions before all is done
|
|