Big 12 Effeciency and Four Factors 3-5-12 (regular season adv stats)

[kougar24]

Thanks sir.

[kso_FAN]

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but it didn't seem worthy of starting a new thread. It is a major reason I enjoy making these ridiculous numbers charts, etc.

I've never tried giving up hoops, but I already know the answer in my case. Not writing about the game would be painful because writers have a compulsive need to write, both to get our opinions across and to organize them in our own heads, but I don't have the same pull with anything else in my life. Something similar is true of my interest in statistical analysis. It starts with the love of the game, not the love of the numbers. Using statistics is, as Abbott explains, a tool to understand basketball better--and one of many.

In my opinion, that's where the dividing line is truly drawn: Not between those who use stats and those who don't, but between people who are interested in learning more about the game and those who are not. There's nothing wrong with being on the other side of the divide. Like Bill Simmons replied to Klosterman about hockey, I wouldn't take a pill that made me know everything about soccer even if I could. Sometimes it's nice to follow a sport casually instead of obsessively. At the same time, using statistics alone is not sufficient evidence that someone is really intellectually curious about basketball. Believing that the numbers are all that matter is just as closed-minded as finding them totally worthless.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2108

[Powercat Posse]

The charts are not ridiculous.   They are awesome.     I am a big stats and numbers guy too.     

[Fuktard]

The #1 problem with this team all year has been shooting the ball and it shows.

You wouldn't know that by reading this board.  It's so easy to see though...esp our 3 pt shooting in our losses.  This board loves to jump on Sprads, but contrary to popular opinion he's playing above average defense, it's his shooting that is killing us.  I know that statement makes me a racist jayhawk, but it's a true statement.   If this team can get find it's offensive groove, we can make a deep run.

[michigancat]

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but it didn't seem worthy of starting a new thread. It is a major reason I enjoy making these ridiculous numbers charts, etc.

I've never tried giving up hoops, but I already know the answer in my case. Not writing about the game would be painful because writers have a compulsive need to write, both to get our opinions across and to organize them in our own heads, but I don't have the same pull with anything else in my life. Something similar is true of my interest in statistical analysis. It starts with the love of the game, not the love of the numbers. Using statistics is, as Abbott explains, a tool to understand basketball better--and one of many.

In my opinion, that's where the dividing line is truly drawn: Not between those who use stats and those who don't, but between people who are interested in learning more about the game and those who are not. There's nothing wrong with being on the other side of the divide. Like Bill Simmons replied to Klosterman about hockey, I wouldn't take a pill that made me know everything about soccer even if I could. Sometimes it's nice to follow a sport casually instead of obsessively. At the same time, using statistics alone is not sufficient evidence that someone is really intellectually curious about basketball. Believing that the numbers are all that matter is just as closed-minded as finding them totally worthless.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2108

I lol'd at this article that was linked:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/15/2799506/basketball-elitists-stats-nba

I about went off on someone at my pickup game that said Calipari could only recruit and was a shitty coach. Was going to cite kenpom d-rankings. Decided against it. Probably for the best.

[sys]

looking at those charts, and comparing them to the ways kstate has won under martin in past years, i'd say the number one problem has been ftr differential.

[WillieWatanabe]

I bet these charts would have been painful in the Asbury/Wooly era.

[Cartierfor3]

The #1 problem with this team all year has been shooting the ball and it shows.

You wouldn't know that by reading this board.  It's so easy to see though...esp our 3 pt shooting in our losses.  This board loves to jump on Sprads, but contrary to popular opinion he's playing above average defense, it's his shooting that is killing us.  I know that statement makes me a racist jayhawk, but it's a true statement.   If this team can get find it's offensive groove, we can make a deep run.

can you believe this racist jayhawk?

[puniraptor]

I'm really interested in creating some meaningful stats for measurement and comparison of INTANGIBLES.

[Stevesie60]

I don't believe KU TO% dif is tied with OU's.

[nicname]

Heard BITB and Clink talking about how when teams go on runs it is usually because they start playing great defense and causing turnovers, etc. and that frees up good shots.  I thought to myself how this years KSU team has almost been the opposite.  We usually play great defense and cause a lot of turnovers. Our runs stem from the rare times when we actually string together a stretch of good shooting.

[kougar24]

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but it didn't seem worthy of starting a new thread. It is a major reason I enjoy making these ridiculous numbers charts, etc.

I've never tried giving up hoops, but I already know the answer in my case. Not writing about the game would be painful because writers have a compulsive need to write, both to get our opinions across and to organize them in our own heads, but I don't have the same pull with anything else in my life. Something similar is true of my interest in statistical analysis. It starts with the love of the game, not the love of the numbers. Using statistics is, as Abbott explains, a tool to understand basketball better--and one of many.

In my opinion, that's where the dividing line is truly drawn: Not between those who use stats and those who don't, but between people who are interested in learning more about the game and those who are not. There's nothing wrong with being on the other side of the divide. Like Bill Simmons replied to Klosterman about hockey, I wouldn't take a pill that made me know everything about soccer even if I could. Sometimes it's nice to follow a sport casually instead of obsessively. At the same time, using statistics alone is not sufficient evidence that someone is really intellectually curious about basketball. Believing that the numbers are all that matter is just as closed-minded as finding them totally worthless.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2108

I lol'd at this article that was linked:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/15/2799506/basketball-elitists-stats-nba

I about went off on someone at my pickup game that said Calipari could only recruit and was a shitty coach. Was going to cite kenpom d-rankings. Decided against it. Probably for the best.

No, you should have went off on him.

[michigancat]

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but it didn't seem worthy of starting a new thread. It is a major reason I enjoy making these ridiculous numbers charts, etc.

I've never tried giving up hoops, but I already know the answer in my case. Not writing about the game would be painful because writers have a compulsive need to write, both to get our opinions across and to organize them in our own heads, but I don't have the same pull with anything else in my life. Something similar is true of my interest in statistical analysis. It starts with the love of the game, not the love of the numbers. Using statistics is, as Abbott explains, a tool to understand basketball better--and one of many.

In my opinion, that's where the dividing line is truly drawn: Not between those who use stats and those who don't, but between people who are interested in learning more about the game and those who are not. There's nothing wrong with being on the other side of the divide. Like Bill Simmons replied to Klosterman about hockey, I wouldn't take a pill that made me know everything about soccer even if I could. Sometimes it's nice to follow a sport casually instead of obsessively. At the same time, using statistics alone is not sufficient evidence that someone is really intellectually curious about basketball. Believing that the numbers are all that matter is just as closed-minded as finding them totally worthless.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2108

I lol'd at this article that was linked:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/15/2799506/basketball-elitists-stats-nba

I about went off on someone at my pickup game that said Calipari could only recruit and was a shitty coach. Was going to cite kenpom d-rankings. Decided against it. Probably for the best.

No, you should have went off on him.

He's an Indiana grad in love w/ crean. I didn't feel like crushing his soul.

[massofcatfan]

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but it didn't seem worthy of starting a new thread. It is a major reason I enjoy making these ridiculous numbers charts, etc.

I've never tried giving up hoops, but I already know the answer in my case. Not writing about the game would be painful because writers have a compulsive need to write, both to get our opinions across and to organize them in our own heads, but I don't have the same pull with anything else in my life. Something similar is true of my interest in statistical analysis. It starts with the love of the game, not the love of the numbers. Using statistics is, as Abbott explains, a tool to understand basketball better--and one of many.

In my opinion, that's where the dividing line is truly drawn: Not between those who use stats and those who don't, but between people who are interested in learning more about the game and those who are not. There's nothing wrong with being on the other side of the divide. Like Bill Simmons replied to Klosterman about hockey, I wouldn't take a pill that made me know everything about soccer even if I could. Sometimes it's nice to follow a sport casually instead of obsessively. At the same time, using statistics alone is not sufficient evidence that someone is really intellectually curious about basketball. Believing that the numbers are all that matter is just as closed-minded as finding them totally worthless.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2108

I lol'd at this article that was linked:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/15/2799506/basketball-elitists-stats-nba

I about went off on someone at my pickup game that said Calipari could only recruit and was a shitty coach. Was going to cite kenpom d-rankings. Decided against it. Probably for the best.

No, you should have went off on him.

He's an Indiana grad in love w/ crean WHO OBVIOUSLY WATCHED THE 2008 MEMPHIS-JAYHAWKS DEBACLE. I didn't feel like crushing his soul.

[kso_FAN]

looking at those charts, and comparing them to the ways kstate has won under martin in past years, i'd say the number one problem has been ftr differential.

At first glance that would seem to be the case, but it really isn't. Year by year, only in 2010 did K-State have a positive FT rate differential in regular season Big 12 games, and that was 1.4%. This year is -5.7, last year was -3.9, 09 was -14.3 (!), and 08 was -2.6.

I also looked at the key point in individual games of whether K-State was +10% or better in FTR differential or -10% or worse, again these numbers are only in Big 12 regular season games. This year K-State is 4-1 when +10% or better and 2-5 when -10% or worse. For Frank's tenure the Cats are 19-4 when 10% or better and 17-18 when -10% or worse. So even in games where the opposing Big 12 team has a signficant advantage in FTR differential K-State is nearly .500 under Frank.

[WillieWatanabe]

no where else to put this. It's from Seth Davis, i know, but it's still good. Nothing shocking about KSU. Wisconsin is pretty funny though.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/seth_davis/02/29/scouting.reports/index.html

Here's how I did it. I spoke with two coaches from each of the big six power conferences. Some were head coaches, others were assistants, but all were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about the teams in their league. I then took my quotes from each pair and forged a single paragraph for each team, which now reads as if it came from one person.

Kansas State: This is a weird team. Frank Martin does a great job and the Wildcats are a great defensive team, but they just struggle to score. They hound you like dogs and do a great job of denying the wings. You have to make jump shots against them, even though they'll be contested. Rodney McGruder is not great off the bounce, but he can score in a variety of ways. He can do everything, but he doesn't do anything great. They get offense from their rebounding, so if you can minimize their second-chance points they struggle, although it's hard because they're so physical. Will Spradling and Jamar Samuels have had some big games, but they need somebody besides McGruder who's going to consistently give them 10, 12 points a night, and they don't have that.

[kso_FAN]

That was pretty good. Davis does have good sources inside basketball, I'll give him that.

[kso_FAN]

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/15/2799506/basketball-elitists-stats-nba

I about went off on someone at my pickup game that said Calipari could only recruit and was a shitty coach. Was going to cite kenpom d-rankings. Decided against it. Probably for the best.

7 years in a row in the Top 15 in defensive efficiency. Worst defense was 40th. He's had 1 season with double digit losses since 03. His worst NCAA seed in the last 7 years was a 4 seed. He's a great coach.

[kougar24]

He also talks to sideline reporters during timeouts. Love that about him.

[sys]

At first glance that would seem to be the case, but it really isn't. Year by year, only in 2010 did K-State have a positive FT rate differential in regular season Big 12 games, and that was 1.4%. This year is -5.7, last year was -3.9, 09 was -14.3 (!), and 08 was -2.6.

I also looked at the key point in individual games of whether K-State was +10% or better in FTR differential or -10% or worse, again these numbers are only in Big 12 regular season games. This year K-State is 4-1 when +10% or better and 2-5 when -10% or worse. For Frank's tenure the Cats are 19-4 when 10% or better and 17-18 when -10% or worse. So even in games where the opposing Big 12 team has a signficant advantage in FTR differential K-State is nearly .500 under Frank.

interesting numbers, they are worse than i would have guessed.  but, the pattern is pretty aligned with what you'd expect - whether by game or by year, ftr differential is pretty predictive of success vs mediocrity.

[kso_FAN]

Final regular season numbers for the season:

[michigancat]

I guess it kind of makes sense that it would be close since everyone is playing each other, but the narrow range of pace numbers is crazy.

[kso_FAN]

I guess it kind of makes sense that it would be close since everyone is playing each other, but the narrow range of pace numbers is crazy.

It has been a crazy year in the Big 12 if you look at historical PPG numbers. You forced me to make another chart. I hope we aren't trying to become the Big 10. 

K-State highlighted in purple.

[catzacker]

So in summation:  We need to score more.(?)

[felix rex]

Probably a dumb question, but is PPP always that closely tied to the final standings in a round robin league? I guess it seems kind of inevitable.