bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-10-20 07:18 PM - Post#299470
In response to iogyhufi
I philosophically agree with the points made by both James and you.
There is certainly an element of randomness/luck in BB -- relevant to a particular shot, or particular quarter shooting percentage and in fewer cases, the entire game. One only has to look at FT%s to see a certain level of randomness, i.e. the Tiger's poor defense on FT shots both in non-conference and conference games this year but far more important is how effective are teams in contesting shots. James is correct as to being able to watch games and see who contests shots and takes open shots. Anyone who has played the game at a competitive level knows the difference as to the effect of good defense on shooting percentages.
I remember in Princeton's undefeated season, I would simply count the number of contested vs. uncontested shots for both teams and Princeton held a significant edge over opponents and shooting percentages were obviously effected. The clearest example is this year's Tiger's women team and as Werner Wolf would state "Go to the videotape" and it is not a function of random bad luck by their opponents regarding their very low shooting percentages in addition to turnovers.
Looking at many of Yale's games this year suggested that Coach Jones and his team did a remarkable job but this year's teams talent level based on watching games was very different than last year's team.
Statistics/analytics are a supplement but I will take the word of knowledgeable basketball junkie any day of the week. Analytics are often looking in the rear view mirror trying to predict the future and not everything stays the same over time.
|
welcometothejungle
Masters Student
Posts: 788
Age: 27
Reg: 07-31-19
|
Harvard
02-11-20 12:31 AM - Post#299496
In response to bradley
I don't think there's really a basketball coaches vs. stats nerds distinction here. There are definitely coaches who base their defensive systems on not playing the 3 point lottery. MH's Princeton teams, along with SD's Penn teams are always pretty stingy with 3pt attempts compared to the national average, which I think would be evidence that those coaches seek to limit attempts in an effort to not even play the 3 point lottery if they can afford to. That's not to say either of them would say their defense has no control over those shots, but I think they would agree that the defense has less control over perimeter shots than other shots.
Looking at Princeton's 3pt defense this season is an interesting example.
From the start of the season to December 10, Princeton was allowing opponents to hit 44% of their 3s. In that time span that ranks 352nd out of 353 D1 teams.
http://barttorvik.com/?sort=19&begin=20 191101&...
From December 11th to today, Princeton is allowing opponents to hit 27% of their 3s, which ranks 7th in the country in that time span.
http://barttorvik.com/?year=2020&sort=1 9&l...
Sure, the Tigers' defense has improved, but did Princeton's defense improve that much halfway through the season to jump 345 spots? I'd say there's probably some element of randomness to both numbers, and that Princeton's true defensive quality is probably around average, as it was throughout the season.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: Harvard
02-11-20 08:31 AM - Post#299507
In response to welcometothejungle
As I said, there is an element of randomness but quality of defense/ contested shots is far more determinate of shooting percentages and yes, the Tigers have played much better defense as many Tiger fans have noted since Penn watching games.
If randomness is such a prevailing factor, how come the Tiger women have not experienced???? Luck or contested shots -- a bit of luck but a lot of contested shots.
|
james
Masters Student
Posts: 789
Age: 48
Reg: 03-18-19
|
02-11-20 10:11 AM - Post#299520
In response to bradley
it’s pretty simple. I am taking the broad consensus of what I read. It’s not scientific. But it’s some element of reading comprehension. Nothing more. Nothing less. Of course the limitation is said interpretation is limited to the characters in a message board. I feel good about my ability to do so. I am capable and hopefully my literature professors would agree. Thanks Yale.
Now leveraging my mba; Statistics are inherently backward looking. Yes they can be a predictor of trend. But one. There are many qualitative inputs obviously and they are ever changing esp when factoring in the competitive set. You can’t predict the success of a lineup solely by what it did last year. I think we can all agree on that. And yes losing 4 starters makes this more difficult when you don’t know the personel well to begin with.
So how do I do it? Well I am a program insider as a basketball alum so I hear and see things (practice occasionally). And I watch a lot of Yale games. I feel strongly bruner has been up until last weekend Yale’s most impt player. He has struggled all year with confidence in his knee as he did last year albeit a bit less. This was manifested in tougher play against bigger and better competition year over year even in the post.
This introduces some real problems should at best it be a nagging problem. When you have 4 surgeries in 2 years it becomes metaphysical. anyway you see it in bruner in the post this year vs his freshman year. And certainly you did last year most acutely. Where are we on the spectrum now?
yess and alausa are talented but limited vis a vis bruner. It just is what it is.
it probably matters the most if the competition doubles Atkinson. Harvard didn’t and given their size adv they really limited Yale’s open 3 point looks. Now the ball stuck but I think one on one matchups had something to do with it.
So Harvard traded atkinsons efficiency for limiting the team. I probably would’ve schemed the same bc I would be scared of bruner and would play the matchups. And unlike my friend on here I would’ve assumed Lewis would be more effective 1 on 1
As it was good job amaker. It worked. In part bc bruner wasn’t himself and couldn’t dunk an open bunny. that play undermines the bullish Yale thesis going forward as we haven’t seen that this year.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Harvard
02-11-20 10:16 AM - Post#299522
In response to bradley
I bristle at this notion that there is some kind of war between "stats nerds" and "coaches" - for a variety of reasons. First, I wouldn't call what empiricists in basketball are doing today being a "stats nerd." To me, that's someone that memorizes and can recite all of the stats off the back of a baseball card. The deeper level of information available today (especially at the professional and major D1 level) has unearthed truths that are literally changing the way in which the game is played. And that is happening because analysts/data scientists/whatever you want to call them aren't viewed as the wonks in the corner, but a true partner in separating fact from fiction, signal from noise.
In 2010, the 3PT rate (ratio of 3PA to total FGA) was 22% in the NBA. The highest individual team was at 35%. Today, the average is 38% and the lowest team is at 31% - only seven teams are below the league-leader from just a decade ago. While the move hasn't been as pronouced, in college basketball the average 3PT rate in 2010 was 32% and there were 33 teams at or above 40%. By last season, the average 3PT rate had risen to 39% and 142 teams were at or above 40% (prompting the NCAA to push back the line, which has had a trivial impact).
Teams are doing this for a specific reason - namely, that they realize the defense can't do much to stop them from taking a three if they really want to and those looks, mathematically, are worth more than the looks that they'll get elsewhere. The reason defenses can't impact the opponents' 3PT shooting percentage isn't because they aren't contesting enough shots. Contesting shots does lower make rates even at the highest levels of the game. BUT, the opponents can take whichever shots they want, so what contesting shots actually does is to lower 3PT rates (3PTers taken) not the actual make rates.
That's the misconception about 3PT defense. It's not that a defense can't defend the 3PT line - it's that you won't see that success or failure manifest itself through the make rates, but rather through the take rates. Take rates are the second-most controllable item for the offense and third-most for the defense (on a relative scale the control is about 70/30 offensive).
When it comes to the actual make rates, 3PT shooting percentages are the second-least controllable element of the game on aggregate for the defense and the least controllable on aggregate for the offense. On a relative scale, the offense controls over 80% of 3PTer make rates, but there's very little there that is controllable to fight over.
That's why 3PT shot outcomes are seen as a lottery, but the rate of 3PTers taken is decidedly not.
|
iogyhufi
Masters Student
Posts: 680
Age: 27
Reg: 10-10-17
|
Re: Harvard
02-11-20 10:20 AM - Post#299525
In response to welcometothejungle
Oh, I'm not saying that there can't possibly be luck involved (although I do think Princeton is playing better D now than they were before). But my impression is that mrjames' position is that d3P% is mostly luck, which I'm willing to be convinced of, but am skeptical about.
Penn's style of defense is meant to limit both threes and layups. The grounding idea for this is not that one might get unlucky from 3 but that, ceteris paribus, threes and layups are the highest-yield shots an offense can take, so if you really sell out to contest threes (like by jumping at the shooter every time he so much as catches on the perimeter) and have a good rim protector waiting underneath, the offense will probably take more long 2s, which are analytically low-yield shots.
|
iogyhufi
Masters Student
Posts: 680
Age: 27
Reg: 10-10-17
|
Re: Harvard
02-11-20 10:23 AM - Post#299526
In response to iogyhufi
Oops, missed mrjames' response when I posted. Hmm, I'll have to think about that one.
|
james
Masters Student
Posts: 789
Age: 48
Reg: 03-18-19
|
02-11-20 11:15 AM - Post#299533
In response to iogyhufi
I am not interested in a war with the quants. I am merely pointing out the predictive flaws thus far (can change)to the extent it was solely informing preseason predictions. But who knows what happens from here if the competitive set changes.
and not sure you shld take it personal in that not sure i am aiming solely at your posts, at least not intentionally except where called out.
I think it is interesting data and to your point, there is more and better data now and it absolutely should be used.
Its an interesting point you make on the 3 point data. i must let it sink in a bit though it stands to reason that defense is more preventative from an effectiveness perspective.
in yales case i also agree ( you have made this point) that rim protection enhances their 3pt defense to this end. Obviously that is all in doubt now for yale pending Bruners status bc they take a massive step down in this regard if he cant go or is limited from here.
i suppose that would be example of marrying the qualitative and the quantitative.
|
