interesting stats

[sys]

http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Kansas%20St.&y=2009

kent and brown's %poss and %shot differences are interesting.  pace and bench minutes are up there, but not astoundingly high.

lots of good stuff.

[Pett]

Thanks for posting sys, good stuff.

Free Throw Pct.:   66.0 (231)

^^^

[sys]

what an incredible kstate celebrity sighting.

    * WildcatWally
    * Member
    * 74 posts this site
    * Ignore this Member
    * Send Private Message

   

Posted: Today 7:50 PM
Re: kenpom rankings
Wild, I met that guy at a work related conference in October.  Didn't realize he was such as basketball stat geek.  Nutty.

[yosh]

Nobody fouls like we do!   

[jmlynch1]

what an incredible kstate celebrity sighting.

    * WildcatWally
    * Member
    * 74 posts this site
    * Ignore this Member
    * Send Private Message

   

Posted: Today 7:50 PM
Re: kenpom rankings
Wild, I met that guy at a work related conference in October.  Didn't realize he was such as basketball stat geek.  Nutty.

[ksu1420]

Thanks for posting sys, good stuff.

Free Throw Pct.:   66.0 (231)

^^^

Difference between 7-3 and 10-0??? 

[ksu_FAN]

Thanks for posting sys, good stuff.

Free Throw Pct.:   66.0 (231)

^^^

Free Throw Rate:   29.0 ( 70)           50.3 (327)
Free Throw Pct.:   66.0 (231)           70.8 (248)

I expanded this a little and it really looms large.  Giving up a ton of FT attempts will really bite you, and even worse when opponents shoot a high percentage and you don't.  Besides our inability to set up shots (16 total assists) in our 3 losses, this set of stats is huge.

vs uk we shot 14 fewer FTs and got outscored by 8 at the FT line in a 2 point loss.
vs Iowa we shot 7 fewer FTs and got outscored by 10 at the FT line in a 2 point loss.
vs O we shot 13 fewer FTs and got outscored by 10 at the FT line in a 5 point loss.

34 fewer FT attempts, outscored from the line by 28 in 3 losses by a total of 9 points.

Clearly we are going to foul more b/c we pressure on defense, but part of this is getting lazy at times and settling for reaches to try to create TOs.  Keep in mind we forced quite a few TOs in those games (besides Iowa), so in many ways it was effective, but there's got to be some "happy medium" of fouls to TOs forced ratio that this team must meet in order to be successful against decent competition (clearly none of those teams are great, but all are at least decent). 

I think the number of FTs we are giving up compared to TOs produced, along with A:TO, will be some key stats to watch as this season moves on into Big 12 play.  And its really kind of wild to watch as a K-State fans b/c this style is not something we've seen in a long time, if ever.

[mcmwcat]

martin needs to get more technical fouls so refs stop calling cheap fouls.  obviously we'd be undefeated if the refs didn't hate ksu so much.

[mcmwcat]

http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Kansas%20St.&y=2009

kent and brown's %poss and %shot differences are interesting.  pace and bench minutes are up there, but not astoundingly high.

lots of good stuff.

i may be looking at those #s incorrectly.  but what they spell out to me is

darren kent sucks!
outside of rebounding and block shots his #s are awful.

[sys]

i may be looking at those #s incorrectly.  but what they spell out to me is

darren kent sucks!
outside of rebounding and block shots his #s are awful.

actually, when i opened the page, i expected his numbers to suck much more than they do.  he is doing some mediocre things.  however, you are exactly correct about his usage stats.  they show he is ending a ton of possessions with something other than a shot (i.e. turnovers).  and also that for such limited offensive player, he is using a lot of possessions (martin's fault, not kent's).

[mcmwcat]

basically it says DK is the worst offensive player on the team outside of CM.  surprised by pullen's low ORtg.  both player have had some really outlier games when it comes to turning the ball over.  but i'm guessing pullen ends the season w/ a much higher ORtg than he has now.  kent probably won't.

[ksu_FAN]

Also interesting to look at experience and the league: (and I'd say our numbers are skewed by Kent and Merri)

BU 2.0
UT 1.9
OSU 1.9
NU 1.8
OU 1.7
aTm 1.7
MU 1.6
Tech 1.6
ISU 1.6
KSU 1.4
CU 1.0
ku .9

surprised by pullen's low ORtg.  both player have had some really outlier games when it comes to turning the ball over.  but i'm guessing pullen ends the season w/ a much higher ORtg than he has now.  kent probably won't.

Not real surprised.  He had a pretty bad start (11-41 fg, 9 TOs first 3 games) to the season and the Oregon game hurt his numbers quite a bit.  He'll rise quickly as long as he keeps playing like he has the last 7 games (besides Oregon).

[michigancat]

Kent's turnovers are horrible.

[sys]

but i'm guessing pullen ends the season w/ a much higher ORtg than he has now.  kent probably won't.

good guesses.  i don't expect pullen to ever have a great ortg, because his usage is really high, and unless you're a beasleyish player, having a high ortg is about impossible if you are taking 30% of your team's shots.  but his rating should come up some (and his usage come down a bit).

[sys]

Also interesting to look at experience and the league: (and I'd say our numbers are skewed by Kent and Merri)

pommesy should do a playing time weighted experience stat.

[mcmwcat]

Also interesting to look at experience and the league: (and I'd say our numbers are skewed by Kent and Merri)

pommesy should do a playing time weighted experience stat.

i was wondering what all they do take into account for the exp stat.  is it playing time or playing time + effectiveness or just years in program?

[pissclams]

mods, can we rename this thread "not interesting stats" ?   


        

[mcmwcat]

mods, can we rename this thread "not interesting stats" ?   


        

they do have height related stats that might interest tall sucky white dudes like yourself 

[sys]

pretty sure it is really crude.  prob. just years in program.

not sure though, i don't see a definition handy, and i can't recreate his 1.4 avg.  maybe it is more sophisticated.

[sys]

mods, can we rename this thread "not interesting stats" ?

you = mod?   

[ksu_FAN]

mods, can we rename this thread "not interesting stats" ?   


        

they do have height related stats that might interest tall sucky white dudes like yourself 

Prob get more bashing, but K-Pom's explanation of why he does the height based stats is pretty interesting.

It should be no surprise that a team’s average height does correlate to its offensive and defensive prowess. On the offensive side, average height has a correlation coefficient of .27 to adjusted efficiency, and on the defensive side it’s .38. For those new to correlation, a value of 1 would mean that variation in height would explain all the variation in efficiency. A correlation coefficient of zero means that the two values are entirely unrelated. So in layman’s terms, there’s a relationship between height and efficiency on both ends of the floor, but it’s not very strong. In addition, the relationship between height and efficiency is stronger on the defensive end.

And props for the Doc!

Second-year Nebraska coach Doc Sadler deserves to be recognized for trying to prove this principle, even if he may not be aware of it. The two Cornhuskers guards that have received the most minutes to date are 5’7” freshman Cookie Miller and 5’11” sophomore Jay-R Strowbridge. In terms of average height, Nebraska currently ranks 317th in the country, the shortest power conference team in the land. However, in effective height--averaging the minutes at the center and power forward position--they are a respectable 113th, and their adjusted defensive efficiency ranks 11th. This is a ranking that will probably drop in conference play, as the Huskers and 6’11” center Aleks Maric have piled up gaudy numbers against the dregs of Division I. But based on performances against Oregon, Creighton and Arizona State, Nebraska will make offenses struggle in Big 12 play.

Interesting that the notion (an assumption that I have mistakenly made) of having "longer guards" doesn't seem to have much merit. 

[mcmwcat]

Interesting that the notion (an assumption that I have mistakenly made) of having "longer guards" doesn't seem to have much merit. 

that's good to know considering we have 2 small point guards in the starting 5