Iowa Basketball Recruits

[PCHawk]

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

So much bad in this. Nova does rack up a bunch of assists due to having really good shooters. Are you saying they don't? Good shooters inflate assist numbers everywhere. Not just at Iowa.

And why do you think I (who is always positive about pretty much everything) "want" to focus on 1 bad minute so I can come up with a negative conclusion? That's completely opposite of my posting history.

The theory that teams don't try as hard when they play bad teams and don't try as hard when they have huge leads is hardly some crazy new idea. I can't believe this is even a debate.

 

[trj]

Hopefully you're not confusing me with this poster. It confuses me sometimes.

It confuses me as well. I have to do a double take sometimes to see if a 'h' was left out or not.

 

[trj]

I usually try to stay out of urination matches, but this one is intriguing I am trying to wrap my head around who I feel is 'correct' in this. The cop out would say that both sides are correct, but it is 2018, so I guess you gotta pick a side. I am leaning toward PChawk in this debate because the way this roster will be constructed the next few years. In close games being able to execute on offense will trump getting stops on defense.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Hopefully you're not confusing me with this poster. It confuses me sometimes.

wait...wha? where?

 

[deanvogs]

I usually try to stay out of urination matches, but this one is intriguing I am trying to wrap my head around who I feel is 'correct' in this. The cop out would say that both sides are correct, but it is 2018, so I guess you gotta pick a side. I am leaning toward PChawk in this debate because the way this roster will be constructed the next few years. In close games being able to execute on offense will trump getting stops on defense.

 

[deanvogs]

So much bad in this. Nova does rack up a bunch of assists due to having really good shooters. Are you saying they don't? Good shooters inflate assist numbers everywhere. Not just at Iowa.

And why do you think I (who is always positive about pretty much everything) "want" to focus on 1 bad minute so I can come up with a negative conclusion? That's completely opposite of my posting history.

The theory that teams don't try as hard when they play bad teams and don't try as hard when they have huge leads is hardly some crazy new idea. I can't believe this is even a debate.

Every team has games where there are blowouts. I don't get how you can think this ONLY affects Iowa so much more than other teams that Iowa's numbers are somehow so out of whack compared to everyone elses? That is what confuses me, all teams are in blowouts. Heck Rutgers got killed all the time, yet their offensive numbers sucked ballz. That goes against everything you are saying, because other teams shouldn't be trying any longer, and "letting" Rutgers score, just like they are "letting" Iowa score.

 

[PCHawk]

Every team has games where there are blowouts. I don't get how you can think this ONLY affects Iowa so much more than other teams that Iowa's numbers are somehow so out of whack compared to everyone elses? That is what confuses me, all teams are in blowouts. Heck Rutgers got killed all the time, yet their offensive numbers sucked ballz. That goes against everything you are saying, because other teams shouldn't be trying any longer, and "letting" Rutgers score, just like they are "letting" Iowa score.

Our pretty good offense has great stats. Their terrible offense has bad stats. And do you not remember last season? We were down big after 10 minutes in probably half the games we played in conference. I would bet we led all of the major conference in minutes played while down at least 15.

Maybe part of the problem is you think I'm saying our offense sucks. All I'm saying is the stats are skewed because of how many blowouts we were in and how bad our record was.

 

[PCHawk]

And saying every team has blowouts is like saying every team has injuries. Sure. But not even close to being to the same degree.

 

[deanvogs]

Are stats perfect? Nope. Do they tell a story? Yep.

Our pretty good offense has great stats. Their terrible offense has bad stats. And do you not remember last season? We were down big after 10 minutes in probably half the games we played in conference. I would bet we led all of the major conference in minutes played while down at least 15.

Maybe part of the problem is you think I'm saying our offense sucks. All I'm saying is the stats are skewed because of how many blowouts we were in and how bad our record was.

PC, I made this very same point a long time ago.

Are stats perfect? Nope. Do they tell a story? Yep.

You guys are totally trying to make the point that our offensive stats aren't nearly as good as what the stats say because of some theory that if a team is behind, that the other team basically stops playing D. All I have said is you simply have no clue weather that is a good effect or bad effect for our offensive stats. Maybe our players also played less hard, why is that hard to believe if you say the opponent laid off because the game was in hand, the same would hold true of the opponent as well.

You don't get to have it both ways, that all of Iowa's opponents are slackers when they have a lead, but Iowa isn't. Being behind by alot could have HURT Iowa's offensive tempo stats just as likely as helped them.

 

[PCHawk]

PC, I made this very same point a long time ago.



You guys are totally trying to make the point that our offensive stats aren't nearly as good as what the stats say because of some theory that if a team is behind, that the other team basically stops playing D. All I have said is you simply have no clue weather that is a good effect or bad effect for our offensive stats. Maybe our players also played less hard, why is that hard to believe if you say the opponent laid off because the game was in hand, the same would hold true of the opponent as well.

You don't get to have it both ways, that all of Iowa's opponents are slackers when they have a lead, but Iowa isn't. Being behind by alot could have HURT Iowa's offensive tempo stats just as likely as helped them.

I might agree with that if I knew absolutely nothing about sports. Teams don't quit trying when they're down 15 in the first half. Iowa never quit trying. On offense anyway. And there is a big window between giving 100% and "letting the other team score". I can't believe someone who spends so much time around sports doesn't know that teams don't give 100% when up big.

 

[deanvogs]

I might agree with that if I knew absolutely nothing about sports. Teams don't quit trying when they're down 15 in the first half. Iowa never quit trying. On offense anyway. And there is a big window between giving 100% and "letting the other team score". I can't believe someone who spends so much time around sports doesn't know that teams don't give 100% when up big.

Just as Iowa didn't quit because they were down 15, the opponent didn't quit or let up because they were up 15. Your entire premise is flawed. You can't say that Iowa's opponent ALWAYS quit/let up when they were up, but Iowa never quit/let up when they were down at all.

Now I'm not saying teams/players don't let up, heck I am the one that said that no player/team goes balls out 100% all game long. Yet this is true for ALL TEAMS, so the stats aren't significantly skewed for just Iowa to somehow be the one outlier in all of college BB and would see their Adjusted Offensive rating drop significantly.

 

[BryceC]

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).

Over the course of a season, you're talking about thousands of possessions.

Again, maybe Iowa didn't try as hard on offense during the noncon when they were playing cupcakes, and that caused their offensive rating to suffer. There are a so many factors that could play into an effect on a stat that it's hardly worth worrying about.

Again, for the billionth time, even if you think they are overrated at at top 25 efficiency team, and you think they are more like a top 50 efficiency team for example, that's still not the problem. A team can be a good team with a top 50-75 offensive efficiency. There is no possible scenario where a team can be a good team with a ~250th defensive efficiency. It just seems like a really, really stupid argument to be nitpicking.

 

[PCHawk]

Just as Iowa didn't quit because they were down 15, the opponent didn't quit or let up because they were up 15. Your entire premise is flawed. You can't say that Iowa's opponent ALWAYS quit/let up when they were up, but Iowa never quit/let up when they were down at all.

Now I'm not saying teams/players don't let up, heck I am the one that said that no player/team goes balls out 100% all game long. Yet this is true for ALL TEAMS, so the stats aren't significantly skewed for just Iowa to somehow be the one outlier in all of college BB and would see their Adjusted Offensive rating drop significantly.

We spent more time down big than pretty much any other team.

 

[PCHawk]

I'm trying to get away from pointless debates on here but this one is killing me. Our defense was historically bad. So bad that at one point an Ohio State player looked at the bench and screamed "this is easy!" I don't see how anyone can believe teams are giving max effort on defense when they can score at will. These are 20 year old kids we are talking about.

If our defense was just kinda bad, or even really bad, it wouldn't have made that big of a difference. But when a defense is god aweful, you want me to believe it doesn't affect the other team? Come on. This was an extreme situation that needs to be taken into account when looking at stats.

 

[Robowe]

We spent more time down big than pretty much any other team.

Um, Pittsburgh lost every ACC game they played this year. They were within 10 points at the end of the game 3 times for the entire season. Pitt lost to Penn State by 31 points. They were without question the worst P5/6 team this year. I would imagine they were down big more than Iowa.

They were 278th in offense, but 166th in defense (that's right, they were almost 80 spots better than Iowa on defense).

 

[PCHawk]

Um, Pittsburgh lost every ACC game they played this year. They were within 10 points at the end of the game 3 times for the entire season. Pitt lost to Penn State by 31 points. They were without question the worst P5/6 team this year. I would imagine they were down big more than Iowa.

They were 278th in offense, but 166th in defense (that's right, they were almost 80 spots better than Iowa on defense).

So the 2nd most of any team maybe? My bad.

 

[PCHawk]

Um, Pittsburgh lost every ACC game they played this year. They were within 10 points at the end of the game 3 times for the entire season. Pitt lost to Penn State by 31 points. They were without question the worst P5/6 team this year. I would imagine they were down big more than Iowa.

They were 278th in offense, but 166th in defense (that's right, they were almost 80 spots better than Iowa on defense).

Is the point of this post to argue that Iowa wasn't down big an extraordinary amount of time? Or just to not pick that they weren't the worst?

 

[Robowe]

Is the point of this post to argue that Iowa wasn't down big an extraordinary amount of time? Or just to not pick that they weren't the worst?

My point is that I think you mentioned that Iowa's offensive stats (like AdjO) are skewed because teams are not giving max effort on defense because they are beating Iowa most of the time. I asked if the same was true for a team like Rutgers (who is the opposite of Iowa - bad offense, good defense). Are Rutgers' (or Pitt's) defensive stats also skewed because teams are not trying as hard on offense?

I think trying to explain statistics being skewed by effort of the opponent is hard to quantify.

 

[PCHawk]

My point is that I think you mentioned that Iowa's offensive stats (like AdjO) are skewed because teams are not giving max effort on defense because they are beating Iowa most of the time. I asked if the same was true for a team like Rutgers (who is the opposite of Iowa - bad offense, good defense). Are Rutgers' (or Pitt's) defensive stats also skewed because teams are not trying as hard on offense?

I think trying to explain statistics being skewed by effort of the opponent is hard to quantify.

You think teams would quit trying on offense? My guess is 20 year olds always want to score, no matter what the score of the game is.

 

[PCHawk]

I think trying to explain statistics being skewed by effort of the opponent is hard to quantify.

Trying to come up with a formula to determine exactly how much it's skewed would be next to impossible. Knowing a common sense thing like kids don't put max effort in on defense during games against terrible teams or in blowouts is obvious.

It's weird how defensive people are getting on something that everyone actually knows about. I guarantee you at some point in your life has thought, or talked about, teams not trying due to score or opponent.