Fair enough, but when you talk about a given game, it is a benchmark for a team that is scoring on average 35 points a half. 35 points takes execution when you look at the college game. I really wish the shot clock would get reduced to 24, as I think that would help with the development of the offensive skill for players. Obviously would have a big impact on teams who play at a slower pace on purpose
Midpoint Final Four Predictions
- Thread starter hawkit3113
- Start date
I’m not necessarily disagreeing. I just think it’s so much easier to just look at the points in comparison to the possessions. Especially with all the info readily available.
Above 1.10 ppp is great.
1.05 - 1.10 is good to real good.
0.95 - 1.04 is average to ehh.
0.90 to 0.94 is below average.
Below 0.90 is a bad performance
So for example, FSU was 67 points in 73 possessions against Clemson. 0.91 ppp. Below average, although not terrible given how good Clemson’s defense is.
Against UL, we were 78 points in 66 possessions. 1.18 ppp, elite.
Against NCSU we were 105 points in 69 possessions. 1.52 ppp, which is one of the best performances for any team against a high major opponent in the last 20 years.
Against UL, we were 78 points in 66 possessions. 1.18 ppp, elite.
Against NCSU we were 105 points in 69 possessions. 1.52 ppp, which is one of the best performances for any team against a high major opponent in the last 20 years.
We didn't see a tournament last year
Leonard Hamilton coach teams usually hit a brick wall.
Where the offense isn't as efficient enough and their defense can't make a difference.
But in all respects Michigan did what was needed to win in today's game.
Win at the three point line.
[/QUOTE]
1.52 ppp is absurd. Where do you find a list of the best performances from the past 20 years? Is that something Synergy Sports compiles?
1.52 ppp is absurd. Where do you find a list of the best performances from the past 20 years? Is that something Synergy Sports compiles?
The issue becomes separating true offensive sets from fast break points.
I like to watch the game instead of just looking at the data
Offer time you have fake data being included.
This includes for all teams. Plus you have to include garbage time when teams pretty much give up.
Not true offensive sets at all
I like to watch the game instead of just looking at the data
Offer time you have fake data being included.
This includes for all teams. Plus you have to include garbage time when teams pretty much give up.
Not true offensive sets at all
Yet this year FSU has 2 players hitting 3’s at a 53% clip, Evans and Polite, and MJ hitting at 42-43%. That is good 3 shooting for anybody, Gonzaga included. A 4th player, Wilkes is referred to by Ham as the best 3 point shooter on the team. He’s been streaky so far and shoots in the mid 30’s right now.
Different team, different year. This year’s team needs more improvement on D.
1.52 ppp is absurd. Where do you find a list of the best performances from the past 20 years? Is that something Synergy Sports compiles?
[/QUOTE]
One of the analytics gurus tweeted out after the game that it was a new record for FSU in the advanced stats era, just beating out a 1.49 or something we had against Campbell years back.
Then someone else ran some numbers for traditionally good offenses (Duke, Gonzaga, etc.) and it would have been a record for most of them too.
So...you don’t really have an answer for the big limitations last year. You just are gonna give a vague statement about a game against Michigan 3 years ago?
Florida St as of right now would be considered a longshot by me.
I would put them and Oklahoma State as the strongest possibilities.
At best I would put Florida State in with the teams who can make the Final 4 depending on the bracket .
I don't see this team beating Baylor or Villanova
So Florida St would have to be in a bracket without them or pray someone else beats them.
I would put them and Oklahoma State as the strongest possibilities.
At best I would put Florida State in with the teams who can make the Final 4 depending on the bracket .
I don't see this team beating Baylor or Villanova
So Florida St would have to be in a bracket without them or pray someone else beats them.
There wasn't a tournament
You automatically want to place Florida St in the Final 4 last year
I don't. I consider that year not to exist because the full year wasn't completed
Fast break offense is a style of offense. When UNC has a PG like Ty Lawson, they don’t get less credit for the points just because the points were scored on the fast break. Similarly, UVA doesn’t get extra credit for shots made in the half court.
Efficiency is efficiency.
I didn’t mention the Final Four. Not for this year, or any year. I asked you out of curiosity what you thought FSU’s limitations were last year, since you mentioned prior years having limitations.
We saw teams play 30+ games last year. We got a pretty good idea of what teams strengths and weaknesses were.
It isn't....
Because that is determine by the team.
So ultimately it is best to separate those points.
Looking at efficiency can be very misleading.
These analytics have errors to them. Big ones that give out false data
What isnt? Points don’t count the same in fastbreak? What are you saying?
Those points aren't in offensive sets.
If you are scoring a bunch of points in non offensive sets it doesn't make you an efficient offense.
I like to separate half court sets from open floor baskets.
Gives you a better understanding.
Because teams can limit turnovers.
Force you to score in the half court
lol this is a silly argument. If you want to rank how effective teams are in half court sets, then do that. But, don't pretend like certain teams don't have a propensity for fastbreak opportunities. Nobody has shown that they can slow down Gonzaga's up tempo offense for extended periods. What you're saying is the equivalent of throwing out 30 yard passes from the stat books, because that's not indicative of how well a team can drive down the field.
And the points per possessions factors in ALL possessions, which represents a team's true offensive capability.
Who said any of that.
Point was some of you eat up this data like it is the truth but it obviously has flaws.
Like I said before with your rankings. I am only looking to make things better
If you can't agree that this data has flaws I don't know what to tell you.
Separating how the points were scored is huge.
Another issue is garbage time basketball
If you want to say the minutes played in junk time skew the data, fine. But, the larger the sample size, the more accurate the data becomes. I'm only suggesting that the fastbreak points need to be factored in with all of the possessions, if you're trying to gauge how efficient an offense is. Gonzaga is going to have a higher percentage of fastbreak points than a normal team, so naturally their offensive production will also be more efficient.
But a lot of points are created from their defense.
More than that teams can take the away.
I am not saying those points aren't important. But those are points created from the defense. Most of the time give off false data about offensive efficiency
Seen it too many times. Reason why there needs to be further separation of the numbers
Is this for real? You can’t be serious.
Again, fast break opportunities are a style. Some teams press. Some teams gamble in the passing lanes. Some teams push after made baskets.
All points count the same. If a team is deadly in transition, then that is part of what makes them hard to beat.
This is beyond crazy.
Think. What do fast break points usually come from...
Turnovers. So therefore those points are an indication of turnovers. Bad offensive sets.
This gives off false information when they play a team that doesn't turn over the ball.
Turnovers don't happen and the team looks sorry on offense
The efficiency numbers are then showing it was the team's defense that prevented the scoring instead of the lack of turnovers
Your arguments need a lot of work. You’re not consistent in the slightest
Sad thing is some of you are protecting a system that needs work
Nothing is perfect. Especially analytical analysis of basketball.
If you can't see the flaws it is because you don't want to.
I think I know the person that doesn’t want to see something
Turnovers are one way. Long rebounds are another. Having strong rebounding guards or bigs who can push the ball up the court. Simply being effective in your execution off made baskets.
Lots of ways to generate transition points other than live ball turnovers.
So ultimately a coach wants to know how a team scores...
If a team is scoring a lot of their points in transition it is different than teams who are elite in half court sets.
More than that as average fan you want to know what teams are elite in transition.
My only concern with my picks is that none of those dudes have won a title. I think the last time that happened was 2006 (the George Mason year).
So you just made my point for me. Transition or half court is a difference in style. The points still get counted on the score board either way.
There is a huge difference and this is why sometimes these analytics fail...
You have a team who relies on creating turnovers to score points but not the most efficient in the half court...
They play a team who limits their turnovers.
They score less points because they are forced in the half court
But the defensive efficiency of the other team improves when it was the offense that changed the game.
This is why I like to go deeper into the numbers than just the basic...
Offensive points per possession
Defensive points per possession
As far as sleepers go, has anybody seen Colorado this year? I have not, was browsing Kenpom they are T20 on both sides of the ball...
Saw pieces of when they played USC. Not enough to give a true opinion of the team.
In the PAC 12.
I think UCLA is winning games without playing to their potential right now
I expect that D to dramatically improve.
I like that PG. He may look weird out there but he is one of the better PGs who never gets talked about.
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
Well-Known Member
Teams who are truly elite in transition don’t rely on turnovers. They push after rebounds, they push after made baskets, etc. Already addressed that.
I’m not sure what you mean by “analytics fail.” Obviously there’s never an expectation that a higher ranked team will beat a lower ranked team 100% of the time.
Anyway, still would love an answer to the direct question I asked you. What do you think FSU’s limitations were last year? I know what I think one or two were, but I’m curious to what you think since you said that it has a serious limitation.
And don’t respond with this crap about there not being a tournament. There has only been 10-15 games played this year and yet you feel fine discussions teams’ strengths and weaknesses. Last year had 31+ games.
Don't bet on anyone in the Pac-12. That conference always underwhelms. Colorado has some nice shooters, and McKinley Wright is a great floor general. But, I can't see them winning more than a game or two in the tournament. They had a rough loss last night against Washington, a sub-100 team that picked up just their second dub of the year.
I think USC, with their length, and Oregon, with the return of Will Richardson, have the highest ceilings from the Pac-12. But, still don't think either team will be a major threat for a FF run.
That could realistically happen. Would be surprised if both conferences aren't represented. And, odds are reasonably high that one of those two conferences will have two participants. However, I pause a little when I consider how few OOC games have actually been played. The sample size is incredibly low. I mean, you're looking at exactly 2 OOC wins against top 20 teams from both conferences. Baylor defeated Illinois - and Kansas had a 1 point victory over Creighton. That's it. The potential is very, very high. Just not sold that those two conferences are going to steamroll past everyone and have 6-7 teams in the Elite 8. I think 4 of the final 8 is a strong possibility.
Similar threads
