mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
02-17-12 11:24 AM - Post#120929
Thought it might be a nice change of pace to talk about the actual team.
Cornell is clearly an underdog in both games, but the Big Red have a chance of stealing one or the other.
For my money, Penn is the second best team in the league and the game in Newman wasn't that close, but I still think Cornell matches up reasonably well with the Quakers. Looking back, in game one Cornell won three of the "four factors," but Penn shot the ball so well (and Cornell so poorly) it didn't matter. While Brooks is emerging, Penn hasn't gotten the play from their front line to exploit Cornell's biggest weakness. Penn in the Palestra is never fun, but if Cornell can keep the Quakers from shooting 10 for 20 from behind the arc, and the emergence of Gray as an all-Ivy guard is real (he's 12th in avg. eff. in league games and, no, I did not see that coming), this could go down to the wire.
Meanwhile, even though Cornell knocked off Princeton last time, I don't like the match-up with the Tigers. The last time, Cornell's pressure gave Princeton fits (13 turnovers) but the Tigers insistence on taking 28 threes despite a huge front line advantage was a big factor. I just don't see Princeton doing that again. And Davis isn't going 7 for 22 again. I hope he does, of course, but I don't expect it. One plus, Princeton does a very nice job of denying their opponents three point shots. That actually helped Cornell last time by forcing the Big Red to do more than chuck bombs (50 two point FGA v. 11 3's)
Cornell doesn't need to win either game to stay on pace for 7-7 and improvement from last season. Steal one, and we are looking at a possible winning league record. Not the ultimate goal, but progress.
|
scoop85
Freshman
Posts: 62
Loc: Goshen, NY
Reg: 02-16-12
|
02-17-12 02:40 PM - Post#120950
In response to mountainred
Solid analysis - My perception as well is that there's a better chance stealing one from Penn than from Princeton this weekend.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-17-12 03:19 PM - Post#120954
In response to scoop85
Big Red is 42% to take at least one this weekend (6% to take both).
The Penn read is the way I feel about the Quakers as well. Zack and Tyler can get hot and bury you. If they go off from three, you're not winning. The secondary options are not as scary, which is why I think people like the idea of being Penn more than a Princeton squad with a lot of weapons.
Gotta hit your shots against Princeton and play disciplined defense. That's at least more straightforward than the Penn game, which is basically reliant on the performance of the other team's scorers.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
02-17-12 04:26 PM - Post#120958
In response to mrjames
Big Red is 42% to take at least one this weekend (6% to take both).
The Penn read is the way I feel about the Quakers as well. Zack and Tyler can get hot and bury you. If they go off from three, you're not winning. The secondary options are not as scary, which is why I think people like the idea of being Penn more than a Princeton squad with a lot of weapons.
Gotta hit your shots against Princeton and play disciplined defense. That's at least more straightforward than the Penn game, which is basically reliant on the performance of the other team's scorers.
42% -- better odds than I thought. I'll take that in a heartbeat.
Zach and Tyler accounted for 36 of Penn's 64 points last time, so I think it is safe to say that tandem buried us. One thing Cornell has done well all season is defend the 3 -- they are #14 in the country -- but Penn won that battle the first time around.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
At Penn/Princeton
02-17-12 04:27 PM - Post#120959
In response to mrjames
Edited by mountainred on 02-17-12 04:28 PM. Reason for edit: Double post.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-17-12 06:06 PM - Post#120967
In response to mountainred
Just in time for that comment...
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/defense_ha...
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
At Penn/Princeton
02-17-12 06:54 PM - Post#120975
In response to mrjames
How does that prove that defense does not affect 3 point percentage or 3 point attempt rate?
Edit to add:
I don't know for sure about Cornell, but Princeton has a definite defensive strategy of preventing three point attempts and making teams make twos. Princeton has the lowest opponents 3-point rate (22.8) in Division I. Next are Wisconsin and Duke who also make a point of overplaying the arc. Opponents make 34% of threes against Princeton, but they don't get as many attempts unless they shoot 30 footers as Penn did.
On the other hand, opponents make only 27.7% of threes against Georgetown, 5th lowest in the country. JTIII plays a long lineup often with 6'8" players at the 2 & 3 positions. They contest threes very well. Last year, when Georgetown played small ball with three guards 6'3" and shorter most of the time, opponents made 34.4% of threes.
These are not random numbers.
Edited by Brian Martin on 02-17-12 07:23 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
 At Penn/Princeton
02-17-12 08:39 PM - Post#120993
In response to mrjames
Do I at least get credit for an assist? 
So, opponent 3pt FG% is like opponent FT% (or at least I assume opp. FT% is "random"). A lot of the missed 3's against the Big Red appeared to be good looks to me, but I wanted to think the defense was doing something.
Brian, what Princeton does is different. They take away the shot entirely, force you to take shots inside the arc. The second chart shows a pretty significant correlation from the first half of a conference season to the second.
Edited by mountainred on 02-17-12 08:44 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
Re: At Penn/Princeton
02-17-12 10:09 PM - Post#121049
In response to mountainred
.... if Cornell can keep the Quakers from shooting 10 for 20 from behind the arc, ...
Penn didn't shoot 10 for 20 -- it was 12 for 22. 
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3664
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Re: At Penn/Princeton
02-17-12 10:26 PM - Post#121050
In response to mountainred
So, opponent 3pt FG% is like opponent FT% (or at least I assume opp. FT% is "random").
I don't think opp. FT% is random. As most people will tell you, when you shoot poorly from the line, it's usually due to fatigue. And you produce fatigue in the other team when you have a big, physical team that is creating lots of contact -- whether it's jostling inside for shots/rebounds or simply standing your ground when a smaller player attacks the rim.
I'll leave it to the stat experts to crunch the numbers before I declare this a fact, but it doesn't seem haphazard to me.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
Re: At Penn/Princeton
02-17-12 10:38 PM - Post#121052
In response to gokinsmen
So, opponent 3pt FG% is like opponent FT% (or at least I assume opp. FT% is "random").
I don't think opp. FT% is random. As most people will tell you, when you shoot poorly from the line, it's usually due to fatigue. And you produce fatigue in the other team when you have a big, physical team that is creating lots of contact -- whether it's jostling inside for shots/rebounds or simply standing your ground when a smaller player attacks the rim.
I'll leave it to the stat experts to crunch the numbers before I declare this a fact, but it doesn't seem haphazard to me.
Hmm, perhaps, though most teams I have followed have been rather consistent in their FT ability or lack thereof over the course of the season. FT defense seems to me to more of a testament of who you scheduled (which isn't truly random, I know).
But that's barely anecdotal and a long way from evidence.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-12 12:20 AM - Post#121072
In response to mountainred
Opp ft% is not necessarily random. Generally, teams that have "good ft defense" are teams that put big men on the line more than they put guards on the line. Some teams will plan to hack big men who are bad foul shooters and try to avoid fouling 90% foul shooters.
As for 3 point %, it is a highly variable statistic. The best three defense last year gave up 28.5% and the worst gave up 41.6%, but in individual games, the 3-point shooting varies from 0% to 70%. A good 3 point defensive team will still give up a few 40% games but they will have more under 30% games.
The other important point is that defenses are not just trying to contest threes. They have to also guard against interior play, penetration, etc. The teams that defend the three best try to defend the paint without doubling inside with a perimeter defender, but sometimes your big men can't get that done and you have to pick your poison.
I will go back to the example of Georgetown. They were great at defending the three in 2007 and 2008 when they had Roy Hibbert. His defensive presence in the paint allowed his teammates to play tight on perimeter shooters knowing that Roy could clean up any dribble penetration. Then in 2009 through 2011 Georgetown played small ball with three guard lineups and couldn't defend the perimeter nearly as well. Now with a bunch of 6'8" players closing out on shooters they are great at defending the three again. The numbers don't lie.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
02-18-12 01:08 PM - Post#121130
In response to Brian Martin
Brian, 24 hours ago I would have said "of course defenses affect opponent three point shooting percentages" for all the reasons you give. But, if true, there should be some correlation between a team's effectiveness there in the first half of a conference slate and the second half. The date Mike linked from Ken Pomeroy says just the opposite. Maybe 2011 was some kind of freak season, but the evidence is pretty compelling that, in 2011 at least, while a defense can reduce the number of three pointers attempted, once the ball is in air the defense is irrelevant.
As for "FT Defense," I don't think enough teams are actively fouling poor FT shooters to really change the data. Looking at the team I know best, Cornell, they are literally one of the worst in the nation in FT defense (#340). I can tell you that they foul indiscriminately: guards, forwards, centers, starters, subs, managers, mascots -- the Big Red will send them all to the line and they all hit their FT's. And it's not just a Courtney issue; no Cornell team has been above average in that stat since the 2003 team finished #64. There is nothing remarkable about the 2003 team.
Similarly, look at Harvard. They are #8 in FT defense this year, but were #331 last year. Or Princeton: #14 this year, # 309 last year. Those are pretty wild swings.
Not evidence, I understand, but curious.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-12 01:30 PM - Post#121133
In response to mountainred
I've been putting together a data set on FT defense, and at a top level it appears that teams have very little control over FTs made beyond what their opponents normally shoot weighted by how many FTs the team yields to each opponent.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-12 05:52 PM - Post#121157
In response to mountainred
I looked up the two teams that I follow closely and their opponents 3-point shooting for the 1st half and 2nd half of conference play last season seems pretty consistent:
Princeton 1st 7 Ivy games: 30/105 28.6%
Princeton 2nd 7 Ivy games: 27/87 31.0%
Harvard, Brown, Columbia, and Cornell made a higher percentage of threes against Princeton the second time they played, but Penn, Yale, and Dartmouth shot better in the first meeting. Four of Princeton's opponents attempted less than 10 threes in their second meeting. The first time through no opponent attempted less than 11 threes. So it appears that the Tigers made a special effort to limit three point attempts later in the season.
Georgetown 1st 9 BE games: 40/123 32.5%
Georgetown 2nd 9 BE games: 48/154 31.2%
The Big East has 16 teams. Teams play 12 teams once and 3 teams home and home, so the opponents in the two halves of league play are different.
Four teams in the 2nd half of conference play - Louisville, Providence, Syracuse, and Cincinnati had games with more than 20 three point attempts against Georgetown. None of the first nine league opponents attempted more than 16 threes.
I am still surprised that Pomeroy's chart shows such a big difference between the first and second halves of conference play since the two teams I follow gave up very similar shooting percentages in the two halves of league play last season.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-12 05:55 PM - Post#121159
In response to Brian Martin
I am still surprised that Pomeroy's chart shows such a big difference between the first and second halves of conference play since the two teams I follow gave up very similar shooting percentages in the two halves of league play last season.
This is a joke, right?
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-12 06:07 PM - Post#121164
In response to mrjames
No. Not a joke. I don't see a wide variation among any teams. I haven't looked up the numbers for other teams, but Harvard appears to consistently guard threes. Duke does. Wisconsin does. And so on. And some teams like Craig Robinson's Oregon State team are consistently terrible at guarding threes because they play 1-3-1 and trap to try for turnovers but good teams beat the trap and get wide open shots for good shooters.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-12 06:10 PM - Post#121165
In response to Brian Martin
So, you're either saying that Pomeroy has made a mistake, or that your few data points trump his? I don't follow which argument you're making.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-12 06:17 PM - Post#121167
In response to mrjames
I assume his data is correct but it is very surprising. Are Princeton and Georgetown the only teams that played consistent three point field goal defense? That seems hard to believe.
I guess I need to see the data on teams that held opponents to under 30% for one half of the conference season but gave up more than 40% in the other half.
I know that some teams are consistently good at defending threes and other teams are consistently bad. Sometimes players make contested threes and sometimes they miss open ones, but over the season the team that consistently contests shots will give up a lower percentage than the team that consistently allows open shots.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
At Penn/Princeton
02-18-12 06:35 PM - Post#121168
In response to Brian Martin
Okay, now I looked up Harvard, and Harvard's numbers for last season are even more consistent than Princeton's or Georgetown's.
1st 7 Ivy games, Harvard opponents made 46 of 124 threes for 37.1%
2nd 7 Ivy games, Harvard opponents made 47 of 128 threes for 36.7%.
Edited by Brian Martin on 02-18-12 06:41 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
