Interesting statistical trend this past season

[fan2011]

I have uploaded a smoothed out plot of our offensive and defensive efficiency trends this past season. The grey box represents the middle 70% of all D1 basketball teams. Being outside the box means you are significantly better or worse than most of D1. It is interesting that there is a very strong linear increase in offensive efficiency throughout the season, except for a dip when Buckingham was injured, but there doesn't seem to be a trend in defensive efficiency at all. My interpretations are:

1) Offensive efficiency went from far below average to significantly above average over the course of the season. We entered the grey box, which corresponds to an average D1 team, around the beginning of conference play. Our team had really, really incredible improvement on the offensive side of things over the course of the season.

2) Losing Buckingham to injury caused a huge dip in our offensive efficiency. He seems to be a very important piece to the offense, his absence is very very clear in the graph and I don't think it is a coincidence.

3) Our defense hasn't seemed to improve much over the course of the season and has been all over the place.

If we start next season where we left this one off we should have a good offensive team at the beginning of the season. Defense will still be a big question.

 

[Octapod]

How come you did not talk about the upward spike in defensive efficiency while Buck was injured? At least you put it on the graph. In fact, if your graph is accurate the change on the defensive side was more pronounced than the other.

 

[plydogg]

How come you did not talk about the upward spike in defensive efficiency while Buck was injured? At least you put it on the graph. In fact, if your graph is accurate the change on the defensive side was more pronounced than the other.

How many games did he miss? According to ESPN's game log on Buckingham he only missed 2 games which were losses to George mason and Saint Bonaventure. I know one was the suspension but did he only miss one game after leaving the VCU game early?

 

[Octapod]

How many games did he miss? According to ESPN's game log on Buckingham he only missed 2 games which were losses to George mason and Saint Bonaventure. I know one was the suspension but did he only miss one game after leaving the VCU game early?

I'm just going by the graph that was put up. I think it was 2 games plus the one he left.

 

[plydogg]

I'm just going by the graph that was put up. I think it was 2 games plus the one he left.

I went through and looked and looks like he only missed the game after VCU which was against Saint Bonaventure and we allowed 97 points. He was back after that game but that Saint Bonaventure loss was the start of our 5 game losing streak where we allowed 97, 85, 72, 103, 72. I'm interested in what numbers were used for defensive efficiency because during this stretch it shows out defensive efficiency being pretty close to its best all season when it was actually when we allowed the most points over any 5 game stretch.

EDIT: I see now. We are both looking at the graph wrong. The higher towards the top the defensive efficiency is the less efficient we are. The closer to the bottom the more efficient we are. Both offensive and defensive are using point per 100 possessions so the defensive efficiency should be viewed as the inverse of the offensive efficiency.

 

[plydogg]

Also the 2 games before his injury as well as the one he was injured in show as our worst defensive efficiency but in those 3 games we allowed 76, 75, and 63 points and they were 2 victories and a 3 point loss.

 

[Octapod]

Look at the defensive efficiency when UR started a 6'7" (SS, NC)/6'4" at the 3/4 instead of 2 6'4" players. Take what you will from it.

 

[fan2011]

Buck left one game with an injury, which I included. He missed the next game, played injured in limited minutes at VCU, then sat out the game afterwards. So that is about 4 games in the injury period which I circled. Since this is a five-game smoothing, the 2 games before and after the injury period are also affected slightly as well, which accounts for the entirety of the dip.

I don't think Buck's absence affected the defensive efficiency since there was no trend across the year and it was swinging up and down with or without Buck. It is much harder to assign that shift in defensive efficiency to his absence when there is no overall trend. If anything, our defensive efficiency was best right before Buck got injured, steadily got worse during the injury period, and was the worst of the season right when Buck returned, but decreased soon after.

I think there may be some misinterpretation of the graph. Higher numbers for defensive efficiency are bad, lower numbers are good. The opposite is true for offensive efficiency. The five game losing streak corresponds to that HUGE spike in defensive efficiency which means we were really bad there.

 

[Octapod]

I went through and looked and looks like he only missed the game after VCU which was against Saint Bonaventure and we allowed 97 points. He was back after that game but that Saint Bonaventure loss was the start of our 5 game losing streak where we allowed 97, 85, 72, 103, 72. I'm interested in what numbers were used for defensive efficiency because during this stretch it shows out defensive efficiency being pretty close to its best all season when it was actually when we allowed the most points over any 5 game stretch.

EDIT: I see now. We are both looking at the graph wrong. The higher towards the top the defensive efficiency is the less efficient we are. The closer to the bottom the more efficient we are. Both offensive and defensive are using point per 100 possessions so the defensive efficiency should be viewed as the inverse of the offensive efficiency.

Let me look at it again.

 

[plydogg]

Buck left one game with an injury, which I included. He missed the next game, played injured in limited minutes at VCU, then sat out the game afterwards. So that is about 4 games in the injury period which I circled. Since this is a five-game smoothing, the 2 games before and after the injury period are also affected slightly as well, which accounts for the entirety of the dip.

I don't think Buck's absence affected the defensive efficiency since there was no trend across the year and it was swinging up and down with or without Buck. It is much harder to assign that shift in defensive efficiency to his absence when there is no overall trend.

I think there may be some misinterpretation of the graph. Higher numbers for defensive efficiency are bad, lower numbers are good. The opposite is true for offensive efficiency. The five game losing streak corresponds to that HUGE spike in defensive efficiency which means we were really bad there.

I understand better now, I thought you had used both sides of the axis with one to show offensive efficiency being high if it was efficient and defensive efficiency being inverse and being high if it was efficient and low if it wasn't. Felt like I was back at Richmond interpreting a graph.

 

[Eight Legger]

Our defense this year basically sucked most of the year, except for when it really sucked.

 

[fan2011]

I understand better now, I thought you had used both sides of the axis with one to show offensive efficiency being high if it was efficient and defensive efficiency being inverse and being high if it was efficient and low if it wasn't. Felt like I was back at Richmond interpreting a graph.

Higher numbers means more points are scored per possession. On offense that is a good thing, on defense that is a bad thing. I will definitely try to make this more clear in future graphs.

 

[Octapod]

Looked at it again. I'd have to agree with plydogg. Some of those ups and down don't seem to gel with the scores. Those spikes on both sides in the middle of the season and the defensive downspike at the end don't seem to line up with the scores. The Bonnies game at the start of the losing streak seems to be a real outlier on both sides of the ball. Where is that game on the graph? Must have been a lot of possessions.

 

[fan2011]

Looked at it again. I'd have to agree with plydogg. Some of those ups and down don't seem to gel with the scores. Those spikes on both sides in the middle of the season and the defensive downspike at the end don't seem to line up with the scores. The Bonnies game at the start of the losing streak seems to be a real outlier on both sides of the ball. Where is that game on the graph? Must have been a lot of possessions.

I think you are misinterpreting the graph. Here are some comments I have added to try and help understand the graph better:

I think there may be some misinterpretation of the graph. Higher numbers for defensive efficiency are bad, lower numbers are good. The opposite is true for offensive efficiency. The five game losing streak corresponds to that HUGE spike in defensive efficiency which means we were really bad there.

Higher numbers means more points are scored per possession. On offense that is a good thing, on defense that is a bad thing. I will definitely try to make this more clear in future graphs.

 

[plydogg]

Higher numbers means more points are scored per possession. On offense that is a good thing, on defense that is a bad thing. I will definitely try to make this more clear in future graphs.

I made the mistake of not looking at what the Y axis was. I just assumed and as my econometrics teacher at Richmond taught us. Never assume because when you do you make an ASS of U and ME. One of the lasting things I learned

 

[spiderman]

I only count 28 dots ... but 32 games? are we missing some? makes it hard to figure which games are which.

 

[fan2011]

I only count 28 dots ... but 32 games? are we missing some? makes it hard to figure which games are which.

Each dot represents a 5-game window of the season, the average offensive or defensive efficiency over those 5 games. Each 5-game window is centered on the middle game in the window, the 3rd game. The first 5-game window is centered on the 3rd game of the season, and the last 5-game window is centered on the 3rd to last game of the season. There are no windows centered on the first 2 or last 2 games of the season so there are no dots for the first 2 or last 2 games.

 

[Gospiders06]

Just wait till next year I was told. Unfortunately, I have waited around a long time I basically see the same result. Win about 17-20 games the past SEVEN years. ALMOST make the NCAA tournament. How about we actually make the NCAA tournament and stop making excuses. Next year we win a minimum of 20 games lose in the second round of A-10 tournament. Everyone is so excited playing in the NIT tournament. I still haven't gotten over the huge loss to Miami during the NIT tournament. That loss SHOULD have gotten people to realize that a new coach is needed. It's someone you have invited over to your home. You ask them to leave. They continue to find ways to remain in your home.

 

[spiderman]

Each dot represents a 5-game window of the season, the average offensive or defensive efficiency over those 5 games. Each 5-game window is centered on the middle game in the window, the 3rd game. The first 5-game window is centered on the 3rd game of the season, and the last 5-game window is centered on the 3rd to last game of the season. There are no windows centered on the first 2 or last 2 games of the season so there are no dots for the first 2 or last 2 games.

thanks. the early offensive and defensive woes include the Fore injury period too. we clearly struggled with any starter out. stating the obvious, but there was a big drop off after our top 5.

 

[fan2011]

Just wait till next year I was told. Unfortunately, I have waited around a long time I basically see the same result. Win about 17-20 games the past SEVEN years. ALMOST make the NCAA tournament. How about we actually make the NCAA tournament and stop making excuses. Next year we win a minimum of 20 games lose in the second round of A-10 tournament. Everyone is so excited playing in the NIT tournament. I still haven't gotten over the huge loss to Miami during the NIT tournament. That loss SHOULD have gotten people to realize that a new coach is needed. It's someone you have invited over to your home. You ask them to leave. They continue to find ways to remain in your home.

I am not really sure why you think this rant belongs in this thread?

 

[plydogg]

Just wait till next year I was told. Unfortunately, I have waited around a long time I basically see the same result. Win about 17-20 games the past SEVEN years. ALMOST make the NCAA tournament. How about we actually make the NCAA tournament and stop making excuses. Next year we win a minimum of 20 games lose in the second round of A-10 tournament. Everyone is so excited playing in the NIT tournament. I still haven't gotten over the huge loss to Miami during the NIT tournament. That loss SHOULD have gotten people to realize that a new coach is needed. It's someone you have invited over to your home. You ask them to leave. They continue to find ways to remain in your home.

Everyone keeps saying this on here but in my time at Richmond and since we've only ever had 2 "wait until next years" from my time on campus. The first was the year before last. The second being this year going into next. I don't know a single person on campus who legitimately believed the future year was just going to magically get better. Anybody who said wait until next year after last season was absolutely fooling themselves. I don't understand how people can pretend that the sentiment after every season is "wait until next year, that's when we'll be good." It just simply isn't true that it has been the case.

 

[97spiderfan]

Everyone keeps saying this on here but in my time at Richmond and since we've only ever had 2 "wait until next years" from my time on campus. The first was the year before last. The second being this year going into next. I don't know a single person on campus who legitimately believed the future year was just going to magically get better. Anybody who said wait until next year after last season was absolutely fooling themselves. I don't understand how people can pretend that the sentiment after every season is "wait until next year, that's when we'll be good." It just simply isn't true that it has been the case.

The past 7 years have been wait until next year. It is the mantra of the truthers every single year.

 

[fatherspider]

Ever think all of these type of stats are invented just to make excuses because your team doesnt win enough games? We are a team that was 12-20. Thats the only stat that matters.

 

[CarolinaSpider]

Players and coaches matter, not stats!

 

[fan2011]

Players and coaches matter, not stats!

It is certainly a shame that stats are unable to tell us anything about coaches or players.

 

[fatherspider]

Everyone keeps saying this on here but in my time at Richmond and since we've only ever had 2 "wait until next years" from my time on campus. The first was the year before last. The second being this year going into next. I don't know a single person on campus who legitimately believed the future year was just going to magically get better. Anybody who said wait until next year after last season was absolutely fooling themselves. I don't understand how people can pretend that the sentiment after every season is "wait until next year, that's when we'll be good." It just simply isn't true that it has been the case.

I guess you have Ulla on ignore.

 

[plydogg]

The past 7 years have been wait until next year. It is the mantra of the truthers every single year.

All I'm saying is that around campus I only ever heard this once. I think the students on campus are a lot more realistic than optimistic about the program.

 

[plydogg]

I guess you have Ulla on ignore.

That's only one person. There are only 2 people in sports who I take at face value everything they say. Adrian Wojnarowski and Ken Rosenthal.

 

[Eight Legger]

All I'm saying is that around campus I only ever heard this once. I think the students on campus are a lot more realistic than optimistic about the program.

That's because anyone who got to campus in 2012 or since has had no reason to expect an NCAA appearance. You've never known one. To you all, it's normal for us never to make the tournament.

But normal for the rest of us is going to the tournament, because we've experienced that and we went to go back.

 

[ncspiderfan]

That's because anyone who got to campus in 2012 or since has had no reason to expect an NCAA appearance. You've never known one. To you all, it's normal for us never to make the tournament.

But normal for the rest of us is going to the tournament, because we've experienced that and we went to go back.

Legger, I suspect most on campus are not overly worried about it. I know this is the BB board, so this will be the only time I bring it up, but the students just had a chance to watch a potential NFL QB and several playoff appearance caliber football teams and would not support it. Just saying.

 

[Spiders05]

2011 - really appreciate the analysis. I think it's interesting stuff to look at. If you are feeling frisky, it'd be interesting to append 2017 to the data to see how big the cliff was from the end of year last year to this year. If you have the data and get bored, it'd be interesting to see how far back you could go with it. My guess would be that there's a massive cliff for O-efficiency at the end of each year.

Then it'd be interesting to look at a different team over a few years to see how much fluctuation they have due to graduation in a normal year over year review.

 

[Spideroldie]

Am re-pasting the image from above, because it is interesting.
So our offense (red trending upward) did clearly improve during the season, perhaps due to the players getting to know each other better, and learning one-another's tendencies. The defense clearly started out badly (Near outside the top box range) and then improved to "average" at mid-season, and then returned to crappy about the time Buck was out, and never really returned to form. It ended the season in the below average range. I think the graph is worth discussing, if only because it DOES seem to reflect what I saw for the season, especially the defense starting out so horribly, and the graph reflecting this. If you are a Ulla-style optimist you might also take away that our offense will be "off-the-charts" good if we continue on the current trends into next season. Hopefully, we know better.

 

[fan2011]

2011 - really appreciate the analysis. I think it's interesting stuff to look at. If you are feeling frisky, it'd be interesting to append 2017 to the data to see how big the cliff was from the end of year last year to this year. If you have the data and get bored, it'd be interesting to see how far back you could go with it. My guess would be that there's a massive cliff for O-efficiency at the end of each year.

Then it'd be interesting to look at a different team over a few years to see how much fluctuation they have due to graduation in a normal year over year review.

Definitely some interesting ideas to look into. I could also see if there is any correlation between efficiency drop off between seasons and the minutes we have returning.

 

[plydogg]

That's because anyone who got to campus in 2012 or since has had no reason to expect an NCAA appearance. You've never known one. To you all, it's normal for us never to make the tournament.

But normal for the rest of us is going to the tournament, because we've experienced that and we went to go back.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thought process that next year should be better than the current year. The Cubs went 100 years between World Series wins but they knew when they had potential for a better year the next year. Yeah, we never went to a tourney when I was there but that has literally nothing to do with identifying whether or not the next year would yield better results. Those things really aren't related.

 

[plydogg]

Legger, I suspect most on campus are not overly worried about it. I know this is the BB board, so this will be the only time I bring it up, but the students just had a chance to watch a potential NFL QB and several playoff appearance caliber football teams and would not support it. Just saying.

From my time on campus from late 2012 to early 2016, the students would rather go watch a 16-16 basketball team than a football team that goes undefeated. I'm a big college football fan and I'll say that my roomates and I (never missed a home Spiders basketball game) have gone to 3 football games. And one of those was homecoming the year after we graduated. Really hard to garner interest in a FCS team, that's really all it is.

 

[Eight Legger]

I was responding to the part about students being realistic rather than optimistic. They are "realistic" because to them that means expecting at most only what they've experienced -- which is never going to the tournament. I get it, but it's sad that a few classes of students have now come and gone and don't think we can or should aspire to more. That's a failure by the program.

 

[32counter]

Too bad there was not a way to have a multidimensional mapping as to whether the game points were either home or away or neutral and/or the weighted won-loss of UR’s given opponent which would integrate opposition strength.

 

[plydogg]

I was responding to the part about students being realistic rather than optimistic. They are "realistic" because to them that means expecting at most only what they've experienced -- which is never going to the tournament. I get it, but it's sad that a few classes of students have now come and gone and don't think we can or should aspire to more. That's a failure by the program.

I understand now. My apologies for my post then, I misunderstood what you meant and now I look like a fool.

I'm a Mooney lover or whatever we're called, but I do agree that it has been a failure by the program. Being so close twice and being unable to do it has been rough. I think if the program fails to make it on this "third" cycle of players then a change needs to be made.

 

[fan2011]

Too bad there was not a way to have a multidimensional mapping as to whether the game points were either home or away or neutral and/or the weighted won-loss of UR’s given opponent which would integrate opposition strength.

There are well established methods for adjusting efficiency to account for all of those things.

 

[Spiders05]

I really don't understand the crapping on the information. Sure beats the same topic de season being rehashed ad naseum.