Iowa Basketball Recruits

[Robowe]

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.

I thought we were talking about basketball.

OK, back to what we were discussing. You say Iowa's offensive stats are skewed by opponents' effort. However, you don't think Rutgers/Pitt defensive stats are skewed by opponents' effort. So, in basketball, teams always try on offense, but only sometimes on defense?

 

[PCHawk]

If someone put a gun to your head and asked you who Michigan State tried harder on defense against last year, Michigan or Iowa, would you guys flip a coin because "there is no way to accurately predict" or would you say Michigan?

 

[PCHawk]

I thought we were talking about basketball.

OK, back to what we were discussing. You say Iowa's offensive stats are skewed by opponents' effort. However, you don't think Rutgers/Pitt defensive stats are skewed by opponents' effort. So, in basketball, teams always try on offense, but only sometimes on defense?

As a majority, yes. If you could poll a million people on if they try harder on offense or defense, do you think the answer would be 50/50? Of course defense is the first end of the court most people let up on. I have a hard time believing many people ever would go into a game with the mindset that they are playing a shitty team so they are just going to coast in offense and give max effort on defense. I can't believe I have to type this lol.

 

[deanvogs]

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.

Virginia won 19 games by 10 or more points, and they were #1 in Adjusted D. How is this possible when it is common sense that kids don't put max effort in on defense during games against terrible teams or in blowouts?

Villanova won 28 games by 10 or more points and they were #11 in Adjusted D. How is this possible when it is common sense that kids don't put max effort in on defense during games against terrible teams or in blowouts?

Michigan St. was #10 in Adjusted D. They won 19 games by 10 or more points, do they just slack off vs Iowa, but nobody else they were beating by 10+ points?

Iowa lost 10 games by 10 or more points. So you theory that Iowa was blown out way more than other teams were blowing out their opponents and therefore it skews the numbers is not even close to being correct.

 

[Robowe]

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.

Actually, you don't know me very well. When I played basketball, I hated when someone scored a basket on me much more than enjoying scoring a basket. I always thought when I gave up a hoop to my opponent who I was guarding that I was letting my teammates down because the opponent got 2-3 points. When I missed a shot, I didn't like it, but I usually looked for a different way to score the next time I had the chance. But, the score didn't change, so the team wasn't worse off (yet).

We are never going to agree on the idea of effort and the effect on stats. I realize the common sense idea of a kid not putting max effort at times. My problem is you saying in a blowout that it's obvious. So, when is that determined? When the team leads by 10? Or when they lead by 20? Did they play with max effort to get the lead, then stop trying as hard? When does that switch happen? Does that effort only happen on defense? Does this only happen in basketball?

 

[PCHawk]

I know every mid aged message board poster swears that back in the day they gave max effort on defense 100% of the time. But think back to your high school days or college if you played. You don't think your 4 teammates would have been ok trading baskets with a terrible team who wanted to run and gun to a 80-95 loss?

 

[PCHawk]

Virginia won 19 games by 10 or more points, and they were #1 in Adjusted D. How is this possible when it is common sense that kids don't put max effort in on defense during games against terrible teams or in blowouts?

Villanova won 28 games by 10 or more points and they were #11 in Adjusted D. How is this possible when it is common sense that kids don't put max effort in on defense during games against terrible teams or in blowouts?

Michigan St. was #10 in Adjusted D. They won 19 games by 10 or more points, do they just slack off vs Iowa, but nobody else they were beating by 10+ points?

Iowa lost 10 games by 10 or more points. So you theory that Iowa was blown out way more than other teams were blowing out their opponents and therefore it skews the numbers is not even close to being correct.

You picked out 3 of the best teams in the nation that would win a majority of their games by 10 or more if they tried all out the whole time.

 

[Robowe]

I know every mid aged message board poster swears that back in the day they gave max effort on defense 100% of the time. But think back to your high school days or college if you played. You don't think your 4 teammates would have been ok trading baskets with a terrible team who wanted to run and gun to a 80-95 loss?

Again, when do you decide when the team is terrible? When do you decide you are not trying as hard? If you are playing at a competitive level, when are you able to make that decision that it's not worth playing at one end with max effort?

 

[PCHawk]

Actually, you don't know me very well. When I played basketball, I hated when someone scored a basket on me much more than enjoying scoring a basket. I always thought when I gave up a hoop to my opponent who I was guarding that I was letting my teammates down because the opponent got 2-3 points. When I missed a shot, I didn't like it, but I usually looked for a different way to score the next time I had the chance. But, the score didn't change, so the team wasn't worse off (yet).

We are never going to agree on the idea of effort and the effect on stats. I realize the common sense idea of a kid not putting max effort at times. My problem is you saying in a blowout that it's obvious. So, when is that determined? When the team leads by 10? Or when they lead by 20? Did they play with max effort to get the lead, then stop trying as hard? When does that switch happen? Does that effort only happen on defense? Does this only happen in basketball?

All those questions would be great to ask someone who was trying to argue that they knew exactly how much lack of effort affected the stats. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying that by watching the games, it was blatantly obvious that we weren't a legit top 25 offense. I'm not saying we were a bad offense. Just nowhere near top 25.

Can you stop arguing for just a minute about how there is no way to judge for sure how much it affected things, then give some thought about the season and how it actuslly played out please? Think about our roster. Think about how frequently we looked down right bad on offense (i get that all teams go through stretches). Think about Moss scoring 19 points in a minute. Think about as a fan how often you knew we had no chance of winning after the under 8 tv timeout in the first half. All these things point to something.

 

[PCHawk]

Again, when do you decide when the team is terrible? When do you decide you are not trying as hard? If you are playing at a competitive level, when are you able to make that decision that it's not worth playing at one end with max effort?

It's just a feel that every player had. Sometimes lack of effort due to big leads bites teams in the ass. Again tho, those are questions for someone who wants to prove how much lack of opponents effort can affect offensive efficiency numbers. I'm not doing that. I have no idea how much it affected it. I just know it did some. The proof is in the pudding. Unless you believe we are actually a legit top 25 offense. I'm not sure even hawknick believes that.

 

[Robowe]

.

All those questions would be great to ask someone who was trying to argue that they knew exactly how much lack of effort affected the stats. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying that by watching the games, it was blatantly obvious that we weren't a legit top 25 offense. I'm not saying we were a bad offense. Just nowhere near top 25.

Can you stop arguing for just a minute about how there is no way to judge for sure how much it affected things, then give some thought about the season and how it actuslly played out please? Think about our roster. Think about how frequently we looked down right bad on offense (i get that all teams go through stretches). Think about Moss scoring 19 points in a minute. Think about as a fan how often you knew we had no chance of winning after the under 8 tv timeout in the first half. All these things point to something.

There's 351 teams in Division 1. There's no possible way for you to know whether Iowa was a legit Top 25 offense. That's why there are stats to measure. You think you watch enough basketball to know whether Iowa ranks ahead or behind Davidson in adjusted offense? Or, if Iowa ranks ahead or behind Washington State in adjusted defense?

I watched the entire season of Iowa basketball. It was pretty simple. Iowa scored plenty but couldn't make enough stops to be competitive. The stats bear it out. If Iowa only improves their defense and can stay at a similar level of offense, they will be better. I am not convinced that will happen.

 

[Robowe]

It's just a feel that every player had. Sometimes lack of effort due to big leads bites teams in the ass. Again tho, those are questions for someone who wants to prove how much lack of opponents effort can affect offensive efficiency numbers. I'm not doing that. I have no idea how much it affected it. I just know it did some. The proof is in the pudding. Unless you believe we are actually a legit top 25 offense. I'm not sure even hawknick believes that.

You said Iowa's offensive stats were skewed because of how they were behind in most games. My point is, if that is true, then it is true for all teams that are behind most of the time, not just Iowa. But, Dean and I have showed, that's not the case.

 

[PCHawk]

You said Iowa's offensive stats were skewed because of how they were behind in most games. My point is, if that is true, then it is true for all teams that are behind most of the time, not just Iowa. But, Dean and I have showed, that's not the case.

Didn't we pretty much set school records for how bad we got killed?

 

[PCHawk]

I also say they were skewed because of how bad of a team we were in general. Teams tend to not take terrible teams seriously. (I thought every one knew this but I guess not ).

If I could draw up a perfect scenario that would make a team not give max defensive effort, this is what it would look like.

1 - terrible defense. A team that will give up a wide open layup any time the opponent wanted one.

2 - a run and gun offense that had a really slow team. This is a great way to lure an opponent into a shootout.

3 - a team with a really bad record. It's a natural reaction to play to the level of your competition. This is a huge issue at all levels of every sport.

If you build a team like that, I bet you could have a top 25 offense with a point guard who could shoot great but can't penetrate, a shooting guard who has a big game, then disappears for 3 games straight , a 3 guard who doesn't even play offense, a really good power forward who is a turnover machine, and a freshman center.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

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.

I don't know where you are getting where I was questioning their ranking, per se. I'm not knocking Iowa's offense at all. I simply pointed out that, logically, any team with poor defense that is dominated over the course of the season will have their offensive numbers artificially skewed to a degree for reasons that I detailed above.

The only criticism of the offense that I mentioned in this thread was that we lack players on the perimeter that can routinely penetrate and force a defense to adjust. We rely heavily on the outside shooting heroics of Bohannon, but, as I stated above, the bigger problem is our defense as a whole. First and foremost, is our inability to prevent dribble-drive penetration, which puts tremendous pressure on our team defense.

You seem like a reasonable poster. If you get a chance, go back and carefully read the back and forth carefully and I think you'll see how the conversation evolved.

 

[deanvogs]

You picked out 3 of the best teams in the nation that would win a majority of their games by 10 or more if they tried all out the whole time.

I picked out 3 top 25 Adjusted Defense teams. Your point was that teams that are ahead don't give effort on the defensive end. That theory doesn't seem to hold any kind of statistical water at all.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

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?

Sorry it took me awhile to respond. Long work hours today and yesterday.

I think that's a good question. Hard to say...perhaps. The only caveat I'll mention is that offense and defense are different animals. I think most would agree that defense comparatively is more about effort and determination, so probably is more susceptible to effort lapses.

If we are talking about games that are essentially decided due to a lopsided score, it is quite conceivable that a team would get "sloppy" with the ball on offense, i.e., getting cute with low percentage passes, trying to make moves with the ball they wouldn't normally attempt, etc., etc. Those kinds of undisciplined plays definitely occur in those situations, so the turnovers go up and the offensive efficiency goes down.

I was guilty of that myself. I remember attempting dumb passes knowing that the game already was decided and basically laughing off the turnover (It didn't matter, so who cares kind of attitude...), and I'm assuming that many of us who played basketball were in similar situations. Also, the backups end up playing more minutes in those games, so the talent level drops off as well, further altering results.

Again, just to clarify, I'm not making a case regarding Iowa's offense specifically. I'm simply pointing out that teams with big leads, that basically know they are going to win, will play differently as a result. That, and the increased backup minutes, can and will have an effect on the opponent's statistical results. We can agree to disagree, but to me that's common sense.

 

[Robowe]

Sorry it took me awhile to respond. Long work hours today and yesterday.

I think that's a good question. Hard to say...perhaps. The only caveat I'll mention is that offense and defense are different animals. I think most would agree that defense comparatively is more about effort and determination, so probably is more susceptible to effort lapses.

If we are talking about games that are essentially decided due to a lopsided score, it is quite conceivable that a team would get "sloppy" with the ball on offense, i.e., getting cute with low percentage passes, trying to make moves with the ball they wouldn't normally attempt, etc., etc. Those kinds of undisciplined plays definitely occur in those situations, so the turnovers go up and the offensive efficiency goes down.

I was guilty of that myself. I remember attempting dumb passes knowing that the game already was decided and basically laughing off the turnover (It didn't matter, so who cares kind of attitude...), and I'm assuming that many of us who played basketball were in similar situations. Also, the backups end up playing more minutes in those games, so the talent level drops off as well, further altering results.

Again, just to clarify, I'm not making a case regarding Iowa's offense specifically. I'm simply pointing out that teams with big leads, that basically know they are going to win, will play differently as a result. That, and the increased backup minutes, can and will have an effect on the opponent's statistical results. We can agree to disagree, but to me that's common sense.

Thanks for the reasonable response. I do appreciate that. I do agree that sometimes in a blowout, there can be a lack of focus/intensity. However, I believe it happens on both offense and defense and by both teams, so the numbers even themselves out. Also, as I mentioned to PC, I don't think it's really a simple thing when a team knows when they are going to win. We have all seen games where big deficits are overcome. When you watch high level basketball, the end of the bench subs never really play more than a couple of minutes, which in my mind is statistically irrelevant over the course of a 30 some game season.

I think the overall point that was trying to be made is that Iowa's offense is not as good as their stats because of their lack of defense. I guess I really don't agree - and that's OK.

 

[CP87]

Thanks for the reasonable response. I do appreciate that. I do agree that sometimes in a blowout, there can be a lack of focus/intensity. However, I believe it happens on both offense and defense and by both teams, so the numbers even themselves out. Also, as I mentioned to PC, I don't think it's really a simple thing when a team knows when they are going to win. We have all seen games where big deficits are overcome. When you watch high level basketball, the end of the bench subs never really play more than a couple of minutes, which in my mind is statistically irrelevant over the course of a 30 some game season.

I think the overall point that was trying to be made is that Iowa's offense is not as good as their stats because of their lack of defense. I guess I really don't agree - and that's OK.

I agree that the focus/intensity waning happens on both ends of the court; but perhaps people don't notice it because it manifests in different ways. On the defensive side, it might be less hustle/intensity. On the offensive side it is more shot-hunting and individualism as opposed to team-based shot creation. Both things eat away at your efficiency.

 

[deanvogs]

Since we are using just made up metrics, what was your Adjusted Offensive rankings for Iowa PC and DieHard?

I mean honestly I can't believe that you guys are so dug into such a dump position anyway, I might as well fully go down this stupid ass rabbit hole with you.