Iowa Basketball Recruits
- Thread starter tksirius
- Start date
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
So using statistics is "losing the debate" now? I'm not the one using desperation, you are the one saying the stat doesn't really count because X, Y and Z.
Every team loses or wins games by a bunch of points. To say statistics don't count because teams lets say blow out all their non conference opponents is beyond stupid.
Somewhere Twins is laughing. Seriously tho, now it's stupid to point out a clear abnormality? Your right that (almost) every team losses big at some point. But Iowa got down huge in a lot of games. Not only that, but they got down huge early in a lot of games. Iowa was an extreme example of playing opponents for a ton of minutes when they knew they were going to win. Most people understand this as fact, but you say it's stupid?
It's not stupid, but it's not measurable, and so it's not worth worrying about.
Who knows. some teams when they get up 10 might want to really pour it on. Maybe Iowa's offensive efficiency actually suffered in blowouts, because they weren't quite as motivated. The point is, Iowa's defense was historically bad, and the offense was just fine. Even if it's the 70th best offense that's just fine and not even remotely the problem with the team.
Who knows. some teams when they get up 10 might want to really pour it on. Maybe Iowa's offensive efficiency actually suffered in blowouts, because they weren't quite as motivated. The point is, Iowa's defense was historically bad, and the offense was just fine. Even if it's the 70th best offense that's just fine and not even remotely the problem with the team.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
BINGO! They have absolutely no clue what effect it might have. It is a completely dumb premise anyway. It is impossible to debate someone when they ignore the facts and statistics and they just replace them with their own made up shit.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
smh
This is a classic example of making an argument out of nothing. Where in my posts did I imply that "statistics don't count?"
I feel like I'm wasting my time explaining this, but will try anyway. The beauty in statistics is in the interpretation, not in the actual data. You have to interpret them in the proper context.
My point was that being a poor defensive team can skew the offensive statistics if opponents don't feel the need to play good defense. The opposite also can occur. That's common sense and human nature. If you don't get that, well, whatever. Again, it's called a selection bias, and is a well known variable in statistics.
There is a book written, I believe, in the 50s, called, "How to Lie with Statistics." I would highly recommend it, as it points out how statistics can be misinterpreted and inappropriately applied, and is still required reading in many college courses designed to promote critical thinking.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Once again how does being poor on defense affect a PER POSSESSION offensive statistic? I could get behind you if you said, well yeah Iowa scores more total points, because they give up so many points, and therefor have more possession in which to score points. That isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about tempo free stats here, that measure what is going on PER POSSESSION, not per game.
I get stats just fine, you just have a bias/theory that you want to be true, so you are making assumptions that fit or support you bias/theory. The fact is you have ZERO clue on the effect of a team trying 100%, or 90%, or 75%, or 50%. I mean it is such garbage really that I don't even know where to begin with addressing this. No player or team is giving out 100% effort on every last possession, in every game, all season long.
To say that Iowa's stats are somehow more skewed than other teams is complete horseshit. You are saying that Iowa's stats are just sooooo much more skewed than other teams that if you take instance X (which you can't even prove helps or hurts Iowa) that then their adjusted offensive output (a Tempo free statistic) is gonna plummet compared to everyone else in college BB. Did you watch 30+ games of another team to even compare this to? Let alone watching 300 teams 30+ game schedules.....
If you could factually prove to me that getting blown out = higher offensive efficiency on a per possession basis, I'd love to see it. Until you bring a fact to the table (just one of them), I'm done schooling you on this subject
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
A team blowing out another team usually takes the foot off the gas on defense towards the last few minutes of the game. Doing so would affect the offensive efficiency statistics but probably only minimally. In Iowa's case there were a handful of games in which Iowa was getting blown out but over the course of a whole season in which 30-some games are played, it seems the effect would be minimal.
Also, if non-conference games are used in the compilation of the stats, one would have to factor in the times Iowa was blowing out Cupcake St. kind of teams in which they removed their starters from the game and also took their foot off the gas pedal on offense.
Also, if non-conference games are used in the compilation of the stats, one would have to factor in the times Iowa was blowing out Cupcake St. kind of teams in which they removed their starters from the game and also took their foot off the gas pedal on offense.
So what about me? I'm a huge Fran supporter and overall positive person. But my eyes showed me something way different different than what stats showed me, so I did some thinking and came up with this theory. I'm sorry but our offense was nowhere near a top 25 in efficiency.
And you really need stats that show teams don't lock down on defense after the game is in hand? I thought that was common knowledge. Watch non conference games. How often do we get up big against terrible teams, just to play a close second half? I see it all the time in sports, yet you not only need proof, you think the theory is straight up stupid? Instead of thinking about how smart your original idea is and "schooling people", maybe take 10 seconds to let what they are saying sink in. Because that's all it will take for someone to figure it out with an open mind.
We have a point guard who can shoot but not drive, a shooting guard who disappears most games, no 3 man at all, a good 4, and a center who started bad bit came on strong at the end. There isn't a coach in the world good enough to make that lineup a legit top 25 scoring efficiency team.
I don't want to be the guy who gives one example and pretends it proves something, but that MSU game was a perfect example for what I'm saying. Scored good the whole game, then MSU decides they need to win and we could even get a shot off.
This whole debate is pretty much about whether or not we need help on offense. In my opinion we need a lot of help there. We can "trick" teams into trading baskets again, or we can actually put a team on the court that can actually score at will, reguardless of the situation.
The thing about changing things minimally is it can turn a top 25 team into a top 50 team, which is way closer to what they truly are. I don't think anyone is saying they suck on offense. Just that they aren't anywhere near top 25 good.
Also the last half of the year we had the reputation of being one of the worst teams in the conference. Who here thinks good teams play the bottom feeders with the same intensity as they play other good teams? Or even average teams? If there was a stat for how many minutes in the season opposing team's gave 100% on defense, we would be one of the worst power 5 teams, no doubt about it.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Sorry PC, but you have gone down this rabbit hole before and I thought it was stupid then (fake assists) and I think this one is stupid as well. So you are telling me that since MSU came up with a couple stops at the end of a game, that the rest of the game meant nothing to them? That they weren't trying for 39 minutes, but ya know during that last minute they really tried. So the 39 minutes mean nothing and the 1 minute means everything, and we should only measure offensive performance during 1/40th of the game?
It is ridiculous, and it was just as ridiculous with your whole "fake assist" stuff. You decided that Mike wasn't as good of an assist man, so you claimed he had "fake" to open jump shooters. Well then how many "fake assists" did Nova rake up this year while making a record number of 3 point baskets?
The stats are what they are, you think we weren't a good offense because you wanna focus on very, very, very selective moments like the last minute of the MSU game. Then you claim THAT is the reality, and not the 39 other minutes. Well guess what Iowa was OUTSTANDING overall offensively against a very good MSU defense
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry. I thought I was recommending a book to someone who actually had reading comprehension.
Where did I state that Iowa is more skewed than other teams? ANY team that has horrible defense could have skewed offensive numbers if the opponent is letting up. I'm not referring to Iowa specifically.
If you can't figure out how a player could have better offensive efficiency statistics PER POSSESSION if the opponent is playing minimal or poor defense, then I don't have an answer for you, but, I'll give you one more example to dumb it down for you (and this will be my final response to you on the subject):
Team A is dominated by Team B in the first half and is behind by 30 points due to poor team defense. They score 12 2-point baskets on 40 possessions, for an average score PER POSSESSION of 0.60.
After the 1st 10 minutes, when up by 20, Team B realizes that Team A has no chance to win because of the poor defense and begins to play poorer defense themselves (they don't need to play good defense, so why bother), eventually substituting in the scrubs. Team A scores 6 3-point baskets and 20 2-point baskets on 40 possessions in the second half, for an average score PER POSSESSION of 1.45.
Team A's offensive efficiency improved after Team B realized that they couldn't play good defense and backed off, therefore Team A's poor defense resulted in a skewed improvement in their offensive efficiency numbers in the second half (their offensive statistics are artificially inflated due to being a poor defensive team).
Robowe
Well-Known Member
Are you saying the opposite is true as well? Rutgers (also a bad team 3-15 in Big 10) was 270th in AdjO and 28th in AdjD (basically opposite of Iowa). So, are teams not worried about Rutgers scoring, but then not trying as hard to score against Rutgers? If teams against Iowa don't play good defense because they are not worried about Iowa stopping them, would the opposite (as in Rutgers case) also happen?
Robowe
Well-Known Member
OK, I will ask you the same question I just asked PC ... does the same hold true for a team like Rutgers who is basically the opposite of Iowa (bad offensive rating, great defensive rating)? Do teams that are beating Rutgers stop trying as hard to score so Rutgers' defensive rating is better?
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
rob, i'll point back to your podcast with Fran from a few weeks ago. I listened and my take; my interpretation, of Fran's statements about "well, we played better defense in '16 than we did in '17 with essentially the same team" that Fran was quietly calling out his team for not providing focus, at times, on defense. Meaning, it was the mental commitment to defense, as opposed to the physical.
I would say Rutgers is just a bad team that focuses on defense.
So as far as assists go, my point was that a guy who played with 2 of the best jump shooters at iowa in a long time is going to have inflated assist numbers. That is common fricking sense dude. For a guy who thinks stats tell an exact story, you sure got on PER a lot awhile back.
