Iowa Basketball Recruits

[Northside Hawk]

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.

I think the Adjusted Offensive metrics for this thread are smack in the middle of the pack.

It's like a tennis volley that will never end.

It's getting into twins 5656 category.

But for some reason I can't turn my head away from it.

And my wife is getting pissed because I'm reading it too much (just kidding)

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

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 in most cases the differences in intensity would balance out over the course of a season. It would be a "wash." But, that would be under the assumption that the teams are fairly balanced.

The difference is when you have teams that are particularly poor in one area that also are losing by wide margins. It's human nature to get a little lazy late in the game when you know you can pretty much score at will to maintain the lead. There's no need to maintain that defensive intensity. How much does that affect the opponent's stats? Hard to say, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. The point is that there is an effect. My point is purely about statistics, not specifically about Iowa.

Sometimes it helps to use extreme examples. We have all seen defenses give up uncontested layups when there's, say, 10 seconds left in the game and the lead is, say, 12 points. The defense backed off knowing that giving up the layup didn't matter - the opposing player got an easy layup, so his offensive efficiency stats are improved (albeit slightly). Now, extrapolate that to, say, the last 8 minutes of the game, when the lead is, say, 25. There's going to be a gradual letdown in the defensive intensity - the result of which is that the opponent's offense benefits. Now, extrapolate that to a season where that situation happens several times - the final offensive efficiency stats are going to reflect that. It may not be a huge difference, but it will be some difference.

 

[PCHawk]

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.

My point was teams don't give as much effort when they are up big. You don't think 3 of the best teams in the game can get up big and still coast to wins? Besides, that was only one of the factors. I already pointed out that we had the perfect team to allow opponents to not give max defensive effort. You are arguing something you don't even believe right now.

 

[PCHawk]

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.

I love how you say we are the ones dug in when you're not giving an inch to such an obvious thing. Which one of these can you dispute?

Teams don't give max effort on defense when they are up big.

Teams were up big against us an extraordinary amount of time this year.

Teams don't give max effort against inferior opponents.

We were inferior to a lot of opponents this year.

I seriously thought these were all facts.

 

[PCHawk]

As far as where I would rank them goes. I don't watch enough basketball to rank them out of 300+ teams. But I watched a lot of Big 10 basketball . Based on that, they looked like a middle of the pack offense to me. If the Big 10 was as bad as people say, I'm assuming that puts us quite a ways down from 25th.

 

[Robowe]

I agree that in most cases the differences in intensity would balance out over the course of a season. It would be a "wash." But, that would be under the assumption that the teams are fairly balanced.

The difference is when you have teams that are particularly poor in one area that also are losing by wide margins. It's human nature to get a little lazy late in the game when you know you can pretty much score at will to maintain the lead. There's no need to maintain that defensive intensity. How much does that affect the opponent's stats? Hard to say, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. The point is that there is an effect. My point is purely about statistics, not specifically about Iowa.

Sometimes it helps to use extreme examples. We have all seen defenses give up uncontested layups when there's, say, 10 seconds left in the game and the lead is, say, 12 points. The defense backed off knowing that giving up the layup didn't matter - the opposing player got an easy layup, so his offensive efficiency stats are improved (albeit slightly). Now, extrapolate that to, say, the last 8 minutes of the game, when the lead is, say, 25. There's going to be a gradual letdown in the defensive intensity - the result of which is that the opponent's offense benefits. Now, extrapolate that to a season where that situation happens several times - the final offensive efficiency stats are going to reflect that. It may not be a huge difference, but it will be some difference.

I do get there is an effect. However, it is not as cut and dried as mentioned. When a team leads by 25 with 8 minutes to go, a defense may be not quite as focused, but the offense is not making every shot. They still miss shots, even layups and a lot of times the offense has subs in as well who aren't as good at making shots. They all count.

Here's my example. I know it's a different sport, but bear with me. Dodgers playing the Giants a while back and they led something like 15-2. Giants bring in Pablo Sandoval to pitch. Now, people think, oh, that's going to be an advantage to the Dodgers. Guys are fighting to get to the bat rack to take their cuts. Welp, guess what happened (see below). 1-2-3 inning. Good stuff if you like baseball.

My point is, the parts of games that some thing skew the stats really are not that large. From a season stand point, both teams are trying their best to score or prevent scoring. All of the factors we discuss are part of the statistics themselves.

 

[tksirius]

Ok, so it all evens out and the answer to life is actually 37, not 42. I'm glad that's all settled.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

I do get there is an effect. However, it is not as cut and dried as mentioned. When a team leads by 25 with 8 minutes to go, a defense may be not quite as focused, but the offense is not making every shot. They still miss shots, even layups and a lot of times the offense has subs in as well who aren't as good at making shots. They all count.

Here's my example. I know it's a different sport, but bear with me. Dodgers playing the Giants a while back and they led something like 15-2. Giants bring in Pablo Sandoval to pitch. Now, people think, oh, that's going to be an advantage to the Dodgers. Guys are fighting to get to the bat rack to take their cuts. Welp, guess what happened (see below). 1-2-3 inning. Good stuff if you like baseball.

My point is, the parts of games that some thing skew the stats really are not that large. From a season stand point, both teams are trying their best to score or prevent scoring. All of the factors we discuss are part of the statistics themselves.

I get what you are saying, and I'm not implying that the offense is making every shot, but, they almost certainly will make a higher percentage of them - therefore the offensive efficiency benefits.

For your average team, the effect on the team's statistics would be minuscule and would average out over the course of the season, but if you have a situation where a team is dominated on numerous occasions, the cumulative effect could be significant.

That said, for me this is more of an interesting discussion about how statistics are interpreted. Some see them as being absolutes in a vacuum (some even get offended and irrational about it ), but, IMO, they need to be interpreted in the proper context.

Using your baseball analogy, for example, it's plausible that the slugging percentage of power hitters, say for the Rockies, will be positively skewed by the carry effect of the higher altitude.

 

[Robowe]

I get what you are saying, and I'm not implying that the offense is making every shot, but, they almost certainly will make a higher percentage of them - therefore the offensive efficiency benefits.

For your average team, the effect on the team's statistics would be minuscule and would average out over the course of the season, but if you have a situation where a team is dominated on numerous occasions, the cumulative effect could be significant.

That said, for me this is more of an interesting discussion about how statistics are interpreted. Some see them as being absolutes in a vacuum (some even get offended and irrational about it ), but, IMO, they need to be interpreted in the proper context.

Using your baseball analogy, for example, it's plausible that the slugging percentage of power hitters, say for the Rockies, will be positively skewed by the carry effect of the higher altitude.

Absolutely the Rockies did get an advantage with a higher slugging percentage in home games when baseball first started in Colorado. However, their pitchers also have the same 'disadvantage' during home games as well. They have also introduced the humidor which has helped to normalize things in Denver from a baseball perspective (see link below). That is why the study of statistics is so fascinating.

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/13/colorado-rockies-baseball-humidor-coors-field/

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Absolutely the Rockies did get an advantage with a higher slugging percentage in home games when baseball first started in Colorado. However, their pitchers also have the same 'disadvantage' during home games as well. They have also introduced the humidor which has helped to normalize things in Denver from a baseball perspective (see link below). That is why the study of statistics is so fascinating.

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/13/colorado-rockies-baseball-humidor-coors-field/

Exactly, and that supports my point, that statistics, by themselves with no interpretation of the nuances, can be misleading.

If you haven't read it, I definitely would recommend the book I listed above. It's a quick read, but the author does a great job showing how you have to look at statistics with a critical eye.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Exactly, and that supports my point, that statistics, by themselves with no interpretation of the nuances, can be misleading.

If you haven't read it, I definitely would recommend the book I listed above. It's a quick read, but the author does a great job showing how you have to look at statistics with a critical eye.

statistics should be viewed in the context of whether they support what a team is trying to do, i.e. is the team accomplishing what their intended philosophy is? I haven't read of any of the previous links, that is just my general opinion.

Rob, interesting that you bring up the Rockies and their humidor. I lived in Denver before and after the humidor. While the statistics in Colorado are now more "baseball-ish", the Rockies still struggle to win. They struggled to win before the humidor. So, at some point, it's talent levels. The talent a coach brings onto a team must help them gain the statistics they seek to achieve their philosophical approach. Having inflated slugging percentages didn't help the Rockies win because their opponents would come into Colorado and out hit the hell out of the Rockies. LOL. I'm actually a Rockies fan, but don't get to see them anymore now that I'm in OK.

 

[Robowe]

statistics should be viewed in the context of whether they support what a team is trying to do, i.e. is the team accomplishing what their intended philosophy is? I haven't read of any of the previous links, that is just my general opinion.

Rob, interesting that you bring up the Rockies and their humidor. I lived in Denver before and after the humidor. While the statistics in Colorado are now more "baseball-ish", the Rockies still struggle to win. They struggled to win before the humidor. So, at some point, it's talent levels. The talent a coach brings onto a team must help them gain the statistics they seek to achieve their philosophical approach. Having inflated slugging percentages didn't help the Rockies win because their opponents would come into Colorado and out hit the hell out of the Rockies. LOL. I'm actually a Rockies fan, but don't get to see them anymore now that I'm in OK.

While I agree that the Rockies have struggled to find the right mix of offense and pitching over their history, they did make the playoffs last year with an 87-75 record and a run differential of +67. Small sample this year, but they are 19-15.

 

[Robowe]

Exactly, and that supports my point, that statistics, by themselves with no interpretation of the nuances, can be misleading.

If you haven't read it, I definitely would recommend the book I listed above. It's a quick read, but the author does a great job showing how you have to look at statistics with a critical eye.

When I get a chance, I will read the book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Here's a blog post where the author explains why he doesn't believe in clutchness. Although it doesn't directly address teams with big leads/deficits, it explains how the numbers show how a narrative about a player not being clutch doesn't really exist in his opinion... it just appears that way.

https://kenpom.com/blog/why-i-dont-believe-in-clutchness/

 

[PCHawk]

When I get a chance, I will read the book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Here's a blog post where the author explains why he doesn't believe in clutchness. Although it doesn't directly address teams with big leads/deficits, it explains how the numbers show how a narrative about a player not being clutch doesn't really exist in his opinion... it just appears that way.

https://kenpom.com/blog/why-i-dont-believe-in-clutchness/

That's a weird thing to not believe in. Some people gain confidence in clutch time and some lose it.

 

[Robowe]

That's a weird thing to not believe in. Some people gain confidence in clutch time and some lose it.

Here's one part of the blog that I liked (see below). Are players suddenly aware that the clutch situation late in the game is important, but earlier free throws were not? It doesn't really make sense.

It does make sense that you notice the late game situations more readily because of the recency at the end of the game. But the fact is, FTs with 10 minutes left count just as much as with 10 seconds left. If you miss one in either situation, it has the same effect on the score.

This is the most common prescription of media types. You know, when a player misses a free throw or two late in a game, and we get the “you have to make your free throws in this situation” and “it’s all about concentration”. As if the player at the line is unaware that it would have been better to make the free throws than miss them.

 

[PCHawk]

Here's one part of the blog that I liked (see below). Are players suddenly aware that the clutch situation late in the game is important, but earlier free throws were not? It doesn't really make sense.

It does make sense that you notice the late game situations more readily because of the recency at the end of the game. But the fact is, FTs with 10 minutes left count just as much as with 10 seconds left. If you miss one in either situation, it has the same effect on the score.

This is the most common prescription of media types. You know, when a player misses a free throw or two late in a game, and we get the “you have to make your free throws in this situation” and “it’s all about concentration”. As if the player at the line is unaware that it would have been better to make the free throws than miss them.

I think it's more about some people's inability to make them late due to added pressure. I would say there is a small portion of "clutchness" where a player actually performs better than normal. But most of it is probably due to players performing worse.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

While I agree that the Rockies have struggled to find the right mix of offense and pitching over their history, they did make the playoffs last year with an 87-75 record and a run differential of +67. Small sample this year, but they are 19-15.

rockies have definitely had their (few) moments. i remember when they won 20 out of 22 to finish the season and squeak into the wild card. helluva fun season. and, going to a Rockies game is a really fun experience. well, other than the $50 beers.

 

[TJHawkeye]

Since this thread is supposed to be about basketball recruits, we now must be looking for a statistician.

 

[Robowe]

rockies have definitely had their (few) moments. i remember when they won 20 out of 22 to finish the season and squeak into the wild card. helluva fun season. and, going to a Rockies game is a really fun experience. well, other than the $50 beers.

That was a crazy late season run by the Rockies in 2007. Almost worth the beer?

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

When I get a chance, I will read the book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Here's a blog post where the author explains why he doesn't believe in clutchness. Although it doesn't directly address teams with big leads/deficits, it explains how the numbers show how a narrative about a player not being clutch doesn't really exist in his opinion... it just appears that way.

https://kenpom.com/blog/why-i-dont-believe-in-clutchness/

Interesting read. I'm not sure I completely get what point Pomeroy is trying to make, but I agree that charting the FT percentage during the last 5 minutes has little value. I also agree that teaching the importance of concentration should apply to FT shooting in general, not just at crunch time.

While I do feel that some players perform better under pressure (that could be defined as "clutchness"), and some wilt under pressure, it doesn't mean that baskets or FTs are any more important at crunch time. That is perception.

The line that caught my attention was this:

"*To be clear, I do believe that players generally perform better when the outcome of the game is in doubt than when it’s not..." Sounds familiar, and it's coming from Pomeroy himself.