Scrimmage Game with Va. Union

[I-M-UR]

Agree, 2011, and thanks for the analysis. OSC

Team Theirs Ours Result

Dayton 9-39 5-25 L

Fordham 12-21 10-24 W

GMU 19-36 8-20 L

Dayton 6-28 4-19 L

Duquense 8-24 5-27 W

GW 9-29 8-24 L

VCU 15-26 5-16 L

Davidson 9-24 8-18 L

Fordham 17-23 3-25 W

UMass 10-26 11-31 W




I looked at the last 10 games. (to lazy to do any more) It appears in games against weaker opponents rebounding may not matter we can simply out shoot them but against tougher competition if does. For instance we out shot Fordham 53% to 35% but only won by 4 pts. Why, in part because they had 17 OR to our 3. In the first Fordham game we out shot them by 10% and rebounds were equal and we won by 15.

 

[urfan1]

Just looking at the rb % is misleading -- otherwise you would not look at the scoreboard for the winner, but the stats book. Surely you can be a poor rbing team and win IF you dominate in other areas to compensate. Where do we offset our low rb %?

 

[fan2011]

Just looking at the rb % is misleading -- otherwise you would not look at the scoreboard for the winner, but the stats book. Surely you can be a poor rbing team and win IF you dominate in other areas to compensate. Where do we offset our low rb %?

The best thing you can do on defense is make the other team miss their shots. Effective field goal percentage is the best predictor of a team's efficiency by an incredible margin, on both offense and defense. Last year was our worst since Mooney's 2nd year in terms of defensive eFG%. Many poor rebounding teams have been very successful in college basketball, but the same isn't true for teams with poor eFG%.

For example, Villanova was 147th in defensive rebounding and 224th in offensive rebounding last year. If rebounding was really important, they would have been a pretty bad team. Instead, they won the national championship. Their eFG% was 8th on offense and 42nd on defense.

We actually improved our defensive rebounding from 66.6% to 68.3% from 2015 to 2016, but our defense was significantly worse. This is because our defensive eFG% went from 46.0% to 50.9%. It is actually startling how little effect rebounding percentage has on points scored per possession (and how much of an effect eFG% has). Our horrible defensive performance last year was due to allowing too many open threes, not staying in front of the other team's player, giving up too many easy, high % shots. If taking away more of these easy shots from the other team results in us allowing a few more offensive rebounds, so be it. You can't make up for bad eFG%, but you can certainly win (including national championships) with sub-par rebounding numbers.

 

[LongTimeLurkerFirstTimePoster]

please stop bringing up facts.

 

[urfan1]

You can't make up for bad eFG%, but you can certainly win (including national championships) with sub-par rebounding numbers.

I suspect this is at least partially accurate, and if you look to one statistic alone, it may be the best indicator. . Again I don't think the game is that simple. I believe a better predictor is a combination of four factors: Pace, possession per game; TOV%, to's per 100 plays; ORB%, percent of ORB grabbed per available: and Ortg, points per 100 possessions. If you add your eFG%, and FT/FTA your analysis is more even likely to be accurate.

 

[MrTbone]

Team Theirs Ours Result

Dayton 9-39 5-25 L

Fordham 12-21 10-24 W

GMU 19-36 8-20 L

Dayton 6-28 4-19 L

Duquense 8-24 5-27 W

GW 9-29 8-24 L

VCU 15-26 5-16 L

Davidson 9-24 8-18 L

Fordham 17-23 3-25 W

UMass 10-26 11-31 W




I looked at the last 10 games. (to lazy to do any more) It appears in games against weaker opponents rebounding may not matter we can simply out shoot them but against tougher competition if does. For instance we out shot Fordham 53% to 35% but only won by 4 pts. Why, in part because they had 17 OR to our 3. In the first Fordham game we out shot them by 10% and rebounds were equal and we won by 15.[/QUOTE

Team Theirs Ours Result

Dayton 9-39 5-25 L

Fordham 12-21 10-24 W

GMU 19-36 8-20 L

Dayton 6-28 4-19 L

Duquense 8-24 5-27 W

GW 9-29 8-24 L

VCU 15-26 5-16 L

Davidson 9-24 8-18 L

Fordham 17-23 3-25 W

UMass 10-26 11-31 W




I looked at the last 10 games. (to lazy to do any more) It appears in games against weaker opponents rebounding may not matter we can simply out shoot them but against tougher competition if does. For instance we out shot Fordham 53% to 35% but only won by 4 pts. Why, in part because they had 17 OR to our 3. In the first Fordham game we out shot them by 10% and rebounds were equal and we won by 15.

Don't confuse correlation with causality.

 

[fan2011]

I suspect this is at least partially accurate, and if you look to one statistic alone, it may be the best indicator. . Again I don't think the game is that simple. I believe a better predictor is a combination of four factors: Pace, possession per game; TOV%, to's per 100 plays; ORB%, percent of ORB grabbed per available: and Ortg, points per 100 possessions. If you add your eFG%, and FT/FTA your analysis is more even likely to be accurate.

Here are the R^2 values for correlation between the four factors and efficiency:

Offense
eFG%: .69
TO%: .38
RB%: .14
FTR: .004

Defense
eFG%: .73
TO%: .10
RB%: .21
FTR: .02

Roughly 70% of offensive and defensive efficiency is explained by eFG%. Turnovers have a bigger effect on offense than on defense, rebounding contributes a very small amount, free throws per field goal attempt contributes nothing. While rebounding does contribute to efficiency it contributes much much less than eFG%.

 

[localspider]

Save your stats, none of this passes the eye test. We stink on rebounding and last year on defense in general. Some old, same old this year. Better talent will improve these shortcomings.

 

[fan2011]

Save your stats, none of this passes the eye test. We stink on rebounding and last year on defense in general. Some old, same old this year. Better talent will improve these shortcomings.

Numbers can be scary, but they can be powerful too. There is a reason computer systems tend to outperform individuals in predicting game outcomes. It is because the "eye test" is often just not as good as numerical analysis.

 

[urmite]

The best thing you can do on defense is make the other team miss their shots. Effective field goal percentage is the best predictor of a team's efficiency by an incredible margin, on both offense and defense. Last year was our worst since Mooney's 2nd year in terms of defensive eFG%. Many poor rebounding teams have been very successful in college basketball, but the same isn't true for teams with poor eFG%.

For example, Villanova was 147th in defensive rebounding and 224th in offensive rebounding last year. If rebounding was really important, they would have been a pretty bad team. Instead, they won the national championship. Their eFG% was 8th on offense and 42nd on defense.

We actually improved our defensive rebounding from 66.6% to 68.3% from 2015 to 2016, but our defense was significantly worse. This is because our defensive eFG% went from 46.0% to 50.9%. It is actually startling how little effect rebounding percentage has on points scored per possession (and how much of an effect eFG% has). Our horrible defensive performance last year was due to allowing too many open threes, not staying in front of the other team's player, giving up too many easy, high % shots. If taking away more of these easy shots from the other team results in us allowing a few more offensive rebounds, so be it. You can't make up for bad eFG%, but you can certainly win (including national championships) with sub-par rebounding numbers.

I have a question. Can a lower defensive rebounding %, lead to a higher defensive eFG %? For instance if your opponent shoots a high % off of offensive rebounds?

Normally I would expect this to happen on too few possessions to be significant, but I am still curious...

 

[fan2011]

I have a question. Can a lower defensive rebounding %, lead to a higher defensive eFG %? For instance if your opponent shoots a high % off of offensive rebounds?

Normally I would expect this to happen on too few possessions to be significant, but I am still curious...

There is a very slight positive correlation between offensive rebounding % and eFG% (r^2 = .09) so it is possible that your theory is correct, but the size of the effect is very small.

 

[iSpider]

There is a very slight positive correlation between offensive rebounding % and eFG% (r^2 = .09) so it is possible that your theory is correct, but the size of the effect is very small.

Maybe you should consider the Analytic Continuation of the Factorial or the Explicit Formula for the Fibonacci Sequence and take your calculations out of the realm of the theoretical.

 

[32counter]

Sounds like a bunch of voodoo correlative nonsense but I would expect nothing less from the basketball posters:
Here's how you win:

• Shoot a high field goal percentage or help teammates shoot a high percentage through assists and playmaking.
• Avoid turnovers.
• Get offensive rebounds.
• Draw fouls.

• Make offensive players take low percentage shots.
• Cause turnovers.
• Box out and prevent offensive rebounds.
• Avoid fouls.

I can tell you why we are a mediocre basketball team.I don't need a chi squared test to tell me nor a multi variant regression analysis.Its very easy to see why we are a .500 team.

 

[Ulla1]

Sounds like a bunch of voodoo correlative nonsense but I would expect nothing less from the basketball posters:
Here's how you win:

• Shoot a high field goal percentage or help teammates shoot a high percentage through assists and playmaking.
• Avoid turnovers.
• Get offensive rebounds.
• Draw fouls.

• Make offensive players take low percentage shots.
• Cause turnovers.
• Box out and prevent offensive rebounds.
• Avoid fouls.

I can tell you why we are a mediocre basketball team.I don't need a chi squared test to tell me nor a multi variant regression analysis.Its very easy to see why we are a .500 team.

32, agree with your simplified analysis. I'll go one step further. Spiders win if they play defense. Period. Over and out. OSC

 

[32counter]

32, agree with your simplified analysis. I'll go one step further. Spiders win if they play defense. Period. Over and out. OSC

Even with advanced degrees in Mathematical Economics and Finance,I like keeping things very simple and to the point.Basketball waterboys love getting caught up in the theoretical,statistical laden part of the game while only having very tiny vertical leaping ability themselves.

 

[Spiders05]

I'm not sure why there's hostility towards 11 providing some numerical support for his position. People view the game differently. If utilizing regression-based analytics works for him, then more power to him. My wife picks her Derby horse by the color of the silks and has won more than I have, despite me being brought up around horses and Churchill. My mom picked her NCAA bracket based on the school mascots and did decently.

Personally, I'm all for a new perspective on how to view the games and greatly appreciate the analytics.

32 - you bashed for making it too complicated, but I'd say you're STILL making it too complicated. "Here's how you win:" score more points than the other team.

 

[97spiderfan]

I think the "hostility" towards 2011 analysis is that he tends to use his statistics to prove a narrative that our play is not as bad as it appears. Hence the "eye test" rebuttal.

Statistics are great but when they are utilized to prove an already preconceived notion, they can be easily manipulated to prove said point.

Not that I don't appreciation his contributions and viewpoint, but his stats are not some neutral arbitrary facts, they are viewed through a lens that is not all that different from other posters who go more with the "eye test" argument.

 

[iSpider]

I'm not sure why there's hostility towards 11 providing some numerical support for his position. People view the game differently. If utilizing regression-based analytics works for him, then more power to him. My wife picks her Derby horse by the color of the silks and has won more than I have, despite me being brought up around horses and Churchill. My mom picked her NCAA bracket based on the school mascots and did decently.

Personally, I'm all for a new perspective on how to view the games and greatly appreciate the analytics.

32 - you bashed for making it too complicated, but I'd say you're STILL making it too complicated. "Here's how you win:" score more points than the other team.

I certainly wasn't being hostile. I am a big fan of 2011 and his analytics. My post was an attempt at humor because I got lost in trying to follow the discussion. Moneyball made me a believer.

 

[fan2011]

Sounds like a bunch of voodoo correlative nonsense but I would expect nothing less from the basketball posters:
Here's how you win:

• Shoot a high field goal percentage or help teammates shoot a high percentage through assists and playmaking.
• Avoid turnovers.
• Get offensive rebounds.
• Draw fouls.

• Make offensive players take low percentage shots.
• Cause turnovers.
• Box out and prevent offensive rebounds.
• Avoid fouls.

I can tell you why we are a mediocre basketball team.I don't need a chi squared test to tell me nor a multi variant regression analysis.Its very easy to see why we are a .500 team.

I agree, improving any of these things would improve your team. But the question becomes, which of these things would improve your team the most? Which should you focus on in practice? That is where I disagree with most of the people on this board, rebounding should not be our main concern with our defense, improving in other areas will have a bigger impact.

I think the "hostility" towards 2011 analysis is that he tends to use his statistics to prove a narrative that our play is not as bad as it appears. Hence the "eye test" rebuttal.

Statistics are great but when they are utilized to prove an already preconceived notion, they can be easily manipulated to prove said point.

Not that I don't appreciation his contributions and viewpoint, but his stats are not some neutral arbitrary facts, they are viewed through a lens that is not all that different from other posters who go more with the "eye test" argument.

Last year I was vocal about our defense being bad from the first game of the season. I was also vocal about our offense being good. I did not think we needed to improve on offense, I thought we needed to improve on defense. I also thought, and continue to think, that the area that we should focus on the most was in our 3FG defense and our 2FG defense. I think we would get better results from improving those areas than improving our defensive rebounding.

Our team had a lot of problems last year, I just disagreed with many posters about what we should focus on improving.

You know who was worse than us last year at defensive rebounding? Duke, Syracuse, and Notre Dame were all worse and they all made deep NCAA runs. Kentucky, Texas and Oregon St. were worse as well. How could all these very poor defensive rebounding teams be successful? It is because rebounding is just nowhere near as important as other factors on defense.

 

[spiderman]

there are reasons we were .500. but the over simplified eye test that points to our rebounding differential as the main problem is blatantly incorrect. there are many ways to win. 2011's stats are there to show everyone that. but while he explain to us that the world's not flat, some will still choose to blow him off.

 

[GKiller]

32's eye test told us Evan Maxwell was a huge stiff and then he got recruited and signed by Kansas.

If we relied on the "eye test" P5 teams would get all the bids. Just another mechanism to give the big schools the advantage imo. I hate when commentators use it too, many of the times they've only seen the P5 teams play and they have no reference point. Thankfully I think it has subsided from years ago but still can be overused. It may be ok for individual professional scouting of players but I don't think it works when comparing team A to team B or team A to multiple teams etc. We need the #'s. I realize not apples to apples to this discussion but the eye test is not generally a friend to Richmond, mid majors or many teams outside the P5.

fan2011, dont worry about the haters. It is valuable info and how you explain and present it is too.

 

[Ulla1]

2011, l love your analyses. Please keep up the good work. It's always best to provide different perspectives. Thank you! OSC

 

[LongTimeLurkerFirstTimePoster]

If you can't guard the perimeter,which we didn't, your interior rotations have to be clean (ours weren't). Last line of defense---rim protector---non existent last year.

Bad Perimeter Defense+Interior Rotations Sub Par+ No Rim Protector= Bad Rebounding. I believe what 2011 is trying to say, is if we can shore up (and that remains to be seen) any of those 3 factors, rebounding should improve.

The other measurements that 32 mentioned on offense we were very good at--high shooting %, less TO's, offensive efficiency, etc. What killed us offensively wasn't the quantity of bad play-it was the quality...meaning missing FTs (TA vs. Dayton), ill-timed TOs (SDJ vs. VCU), lack of last second "big shots" (TJC vs. VCU, MW vs. VCU, TA vs. St Joes).

 

[localspider]

"there are reasons we were .500. but the over simplified eye test that points to our rebounding differential as the main problem is blatantly incorrect. there are many ways to win. 2011's stats are there to show everyone that. but while he explain to us that the world's not flat, some will still choose to blow him off."

I don't recall anyone stating that rebounding or lack there of being the main problem. Rebounding being the final phase of defense was certainly a contributing factor but overall as many have pointed out with stats and "eye test" the defense in general was not good. Getting crushed on the boards and being in denial raises eyebrows. Even CM commented that it is a problem. The question remains whether it will be corrected.

 

[32counter]

Mathematizing on how great we are in basketball only further camouflages our fundamental inadequacies.We need true ballers to win.We have a few very good young ones now.You can do a regression analysis correlating anything,except winning.

 

[97spiderfan]

There were multiple reasons last year why we were a .500 club and similarly multiple reasons why we haven't sniffed an NCAA bid in 5 years now.

The biggest reason to me is not our defense, our rebounding, or our offense. It has been that we simply have not had enough A-10 quality players on the roster. We had guys playing starter roles, who had bench/role player talent and had a woefully thin bench beyond that.

Mooney recruited poorly for a number of years, recruited players without enough skill level, and was unable to use his full scholarships available to him on several of those years. So, we reaped what he sowed for us.

Hopefully, that has changed now, time will tell.

 

[spider23]

Good point 97, you have to have players. As Webspinner has said on here, we want freshman that are good enough to come in and compete for playing time right away. Those guys turn into all conference or + players as juniors and seniors, and can lead to NCAA appearances. I agree that we have had some players that were just too one dimensional or otherwise flawed. That causes the breakdowns on D and rebounding, and cold spells the last five minutes when the other team is really locking down. I do share the concern someone noted that our defensive switch would be to man to man. I love Cline, Wood and Shawndre offensively, but not sure if these guys are lock down in man situations. Again, as 97 points out, the better the player, the better the stats, Defense, offense and all the metrics will be. Really hoping that Monte, Sherod and Golden make the adjustment quickly as all three seem to be complete players that can play and have impact no matter the scheme.

 

[32counter]

Fan2011

Please continue your analysis.Dont mind me.
I haven't been happy about the program for quite awhile.Usually I don't know what the hell I'm talking about especially when it comes to hardcourt issues.

 

[WebSpinner]

i believe that even our very good teams did not rebound well proving the thought that you can make it up in other areas. play really good D, hit your shots, including free throws.

 

[gospidersgo]

I love checking in here because there IS such a range of opinions/expertise/thoughts, etc. Especially when you consider that the contributions are mainly from a core of probably 20-30 posters.

 

[urfan1]

I don't intend to be hostile to 2011 if it comes across that way, I apologize. Not a mathematician so I don't understand all of his analysis which weakens his argument in my eyes. I do disagree with his premise as I understand it -- best indicator of success the shooting efficiency (and best way to improve our team). I do believe it to be an important stat, but I still believe an oversimplification. An exaggerated example to show why I feel the way I do -- team A does most things very poorly, but shoots great. Makes 10 of 10 shots in a game, all 3s = 30 points. team B shoots average, but does most every thing else well, 12 for 24 at 2s and 6 for 12 at 3s = 60 points.

 

[MrTbone]

I don't intend to be hostile to 2011 if it comes across that way, I apologize. Not a mathematician so I don't understand all of his analysis which weakens his argument in my eyes. I do disagree with his premise as I understand it -- best indicator of success the shooting efficiency (and best way to improve our team). I do believe it to be an important stat, but I still believe an oversimplification. An exaggerated example to show why I feel the way I do -- team A does most things very poorly, but shoots great. Makes 10 of 10 shots in a game, all 3s = 30 points. team B shoots average, but does most every thing else well, 12 for 24 at 2s and 6 for 12 at 3s = 60 points.

Obviously there are myriad issues with the example so I won't name them. I do think you misunderstand 2011s point which I interpret rather simply: rebounding isn't a strong indicator of success in the same way that scoring efficiency is. I'm sure he can say it more eloquently than I have.

Stats are stats, they neither make a condition true nor certain. But they are hugely valuable in isolating strengths and weaknesses so it's foolish to disregard something that can plainly point to those attributes we need to focus on.

 

[localspider]

Same here, no offense to 2011, but I have always believed stats can be twisted for an intended results. For example I would like to see the 2015 W-L record results if we out rebounded opponents my 13 boards every game. I don't have a clue but would wager much better than .500. Same spread as VUU game, and a Dll team.

 

[AnnapSpider]

What does offensive rebounding have to do with our issues on defense?

If we have the ball the other team can't score. That's what offensive rebounds mean to a defense.

 

[fan2011]

Same here, no offense to 2011, but I have always believed stats can be twisted for an intended results. For example I would like to see the 2015 W-L record results if we out rebounded opponents my 13 boards every game. I don't have a clue but would wager much better than .500. Same spread as VUU game, and a Dll team.

Of course, all other things constant, being a better rebounding team would make us win more games. No team in the country had a rebounding margin of 13 last year, the best margin was 11. If our rebounding margin was 13 last year we would have won more games, but if we had a similarly ludicrous eFG% of 35% (20% better than the best team last year) we would have had a really good shot at winning the NCAA championship. GMU lead the A10 in rebounding margin, they had the 14th highest rebounding margin in the country, and they won ~34% of their games...

 

[urfan1]

Good rebounding average, what did they do so poorly, in addition to poor shooting?

 

[fan2011]

If we have the ball the other team can't score. That's what offensive rebounds mean to a defense.

Each team gets the same number of possessions in college basketball. If we hold onto the ball longer it just means both teams will have fewer total possessions at the end of the game. We will have still had the same number of possessions though (one team sometimes gets a single additional possession).

 

[fan2011]

Good rebounding average, what did they do so poorly, in addition to poor shooting?

They were 328th in the country in eFG% on offense, but 51st in OR% and 2nd!!! in DR%. Pretty obvious that their inability to shoot had a much bigger impact on the games than their incredible rebounding ability.

 

[localspider]

I question: Each team gets the same number of possessions in college basketball? How could that be if we lose the rebounding margin in most games?

 

[fan2011]

I question: Each team gets the same number of possessions in college basketball? How could that be if we lose the rebounding margin in most games?

I think we have different definitions of what a possession is. Here is an article that describes what I am talking about when I say possession:

http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/12/21/nylon-calculus-101-possessions/