A well-coached team

[kso_FAN]

Let's strive to be better than the media then.  What would YOU consider to be empirical indicators of a well coached team (or poorly-coached team)?  Of course with the handicap of not using W/L.

Offensively approach 1.1 ppp, eFG% over 48%, TO% under 20%, oboarding over 35% and hopefully pushing 40%. 35% on 3s. FT rate above 40% would be nice.

Defensively under .95 ppp, eFG% of 46% or lower, TO% over 20, oboarding in the low 30s. FT% rate below 40% would be nice.

We can possibly disagree about efficiency being a good measure of defense (I think its pretty good), but at least it's evidence of something.

Who would argue against efficiency being a good measure of defense (or offense)? This doesn't make any sense.

[420seriouscat69]

They usually go by points allowed. That can also be a style of play tho, too. So I can understand why some would say you can't look at points allowed by itself. For instance, Nebraska and Wisconsin style of play. Drain the clock on offense and then shoot = low scoring games.

[Cartierfor3]

I think in season improvement would be the best indicator of a well coached team. Those of us who watched the Huggy year with Cartier and Hoskins and that crew would all agree that the team improved dramatically as the year progressed. Went from getting blown out at NM and Cal to being a Top 4 team in the league that was a win away from making the tourney. That was a well coached team. I mean, they had no guards on that team like at all.

[8manpick]

They usually go by points allowed. That can also be a style of play tho, too. So I can understand why some would say you can't look at points allowed by itself. For instance, Nebraska and Wisconsin style of play. Drain the clock on offense and then shoot = low scoring games.

Points allowed is a really exceedingly dumb way to measure the success of a basketball defense

[420seriouscat69]

Well, I kinda explained that with style of play.

[CHONGS]

Who would argue against efficiency being a good measure of defense (or offense)? This doesn't make any sense.

I certainly wouldn't.  I wouldn't be surprised, however, to hear some people stick to the idea that avg points allowed is a better measure of defense (see Wacky). 

[420seriouscat69]

Ppl (media) also give weber the benefit of the doubt, because of all the off season movements (his fault). I think they thought we'd be Missouri bad, but instead, we're just semi bad, which is why they give oscar Snyder treatment. "He's doing this with a bunch of lowly recruits!"

[CHONGS]

I think in season improvement would be the best indicator of a well coached team. Those of us who watched the Huggy year with Cartier and Hoskins and that crew would all agree that the team improved dramatically as the year progressed. Went from getting blown out at NM and Cal to being a Top 4 team in the league that was a win away from making the tourney. That was a well coached team. I mean, they had no guards on that team like at all.

How do you measure improvement?

[kso_FAN]

Who would argue against efficiency being a good measure of defense (or offense)? This doesn't make any sense.

I certainly wouldn't.  I wouldn't be surprised, however, to hear some people stick to the idea that avg points allowed is a better measure of defense (see Wacky). 

Good point.

BTW, my stats are based a lot on what I think it takes to win at schools like K-State. I think its tough for us to recruit a bunch of high level shooters or elite scoring big men. But we can get guys that can be good to great players if they develop and use an offense style that doesn't rely completely on shooting, but takes care of the ball and wins effort stats like oboarding and drawing fouls.

[CHONGS]

Let's strive to be better than the media then.  What would YOU consider to be empirical indicators of a well coached team (or poorly-coached team)?  Of course with the handicap of not using W/L.

Offensively approach 1.1 ppp, eFG% over 48%, TO% under 20%, oboarding over 35% and hopefully pushing 40%. 35% on 3s. FT rate above 40% would be nice.

Defensively under .95 ppp, eFG% of 46% or lower, TO% over 20, oboarding in the low 30s. FT% rate below 40% would be nice.

Would be interesting to see what teams match your numbers and see if any of these teams have a mediocre/poor record.

[kso_FAN]

Let's strive to be better than the media then.  What would YOU consider to be empirical indicators of a well coached team (or poorly-coached team)?  Of course with the handicap of not using W/L.

Offensively approach 1.1 ppp, eFG% over 48%, TO% under 20%, oboarding over 35% and hopefully pushing 40%. 35% on 3s. FT rate above 40% would be nice.

Defensively under .95 ppp, eFG% of 46% or lower, TO% over 20, oboarding in the low 30s. FT% rate below 40% would be nice.

Would be interesting to see what teams match your numbers and see if any of these teams have a mediocre/poor record.

My ideal was built largely by watching Frank's teams, though I think TOs were often a problem for his teams. Again, see what I said above about recruiting. I mean, having 50%+ shooting teams would be really fun, but you've got to give and take a little bit. I appreciated the way Frank built a winner here because I think its sustainable.

[meow meow]

I think in season improvement would be the best indicator of a well coached team. Those of us who watched the Huggy year with Cartier and Hoskins and that crew would all agree that the team improved dramatically as the year progressed. Went from getting blown out at NM and Cal to being a Top 4 team in the league that was a win away from making the tourney. That was a well coached team. I mean, they had no guards on that team like at all.

How do you measure improvement?

wins

[CHONGS]

I think in season improvement would be the best indicator of a well coached team. Those of us who watched the Huggy year with Cartier and Hoskins and that crew would all agree that the team improved dramatically as the year progressed. Went from getting blown out at NM and Cal to being a Top 4 team in the league that was a win away from making the tourney. That was a well coached team. I mean, they had no guards on that team like at all.

How do you measure improvement?

wins

Most teams have more wins at the end of the year than in the beginning.  Can't think of any who have less.

[Cartierfor3]

I think in season improvement would be the best indicator of a well coached team. Those of us who watched the Huggy year with Cartier and Hoskins and that crew would all agree that the team improved dramatically as the year progressed. Went from getting blown out at NM and Cal to being a Top 4 team in the league that was a win away from making the tourney. That was a well coached team. I mean, they had no guards on that team like at all.

How do you measure improvement?

well that season the teams they lost to early in the year were like 100 in kenpom like Colorado St and later in the season they were beating teams like Texas (24 kenpom) and were with a few possessions twice against Kansas (5 kenpom). Early on they lost by 30 to Cal (76 Kenpom) and beat Tech (77 Kenpom) by 20 in the Big XII tourney. Its rough but I think that works. 

[CHONGS]

I think in season improvement would be the best indicator of a well coached team. Those of us who watched the Huggy year with Cartier and Hoskins and that crew would all agree that the team improved dramatically as the year progressed. Went from getting blown out at NM and Cal to being a Top 4 team in the league that was a win away from making the tourney. That was a well coached team. I mean, they had no guards on that team like at all.

How do you measure improvement?

well that season the teams they lost to early in the year were like 100 in kenpom like Colorado St and later in the season they were beating teams like Texas (24 kenpom) and were with a few possessions twice against Kansas (5 kenpom). Early on they lost by 30 to Cal (76 Kenpom) and beat Tech (77 Kenpom) by 20 in the Big XII tourney. Its rough but I think that works. 

That's not too bad. I assume that you would use end-of-the-year rankings rather than ranking at the time of the game.

[Cartierfor3]

I think in season improvement would be the best indicator of a well coached team. Those of us who watched the Huggy year with Cartier and Hoskins and that crew would all agree that the team improved dramatically as the year progressed. Went from getting blown out at NM and Cal to being a Top 4 team in the league that was a win away from making the tourney. That was a well coached team. I mean, they had no guards on that team like at all.

How do you measure improvement?

well that season the teams they lost to early in the year were like 100 in kenpom like Colorado St and later in the season they were beating teams like Texas (24 kenpom) and were with a few possessions twice against Kansas (5 kenpom). Early on they lost by 30 to Cal (76 Kenpom) and beat Tech (77 Kenpom) by 20 in the Big XII tourney. Its rough but I think that works. 

That's not too bad. I assume that you would use end-of-the-year rankings rather than ranking at the time of the game.

of course

[AbeFroman]

Its the sports equivalent of saying "she has a really nice personality"

Bingo. Lock thread this one is over. Goes with what _fan said about "likable" to the media

[Gooch]

If we could get frank and bill self to recruit for weber, we might be on to something.

How about we just let Frank do both recruit and coach?

[420seriouscat69]

If we could get frank and bill self to recruit for weber, we might be on to something.

How about we just let Frank do both recruit and coach?

I'd be ok with that. We better jump on Underwood, before he slips away.

[kso_FAN]

I think Calipari is a really, really good coach. He gets the credit for elite recruiting (which he should), but his teams defend like crazy and oboard like crazy. His ability to take that much elite talent and get it to play together and win effort stats like I mentioned really impresses me. He doesn't coach much different than Frank really as far as style goes.

[CHONGS]

I think Calipari is a really, really good coach. He gets the credit for elite recruiting (which he should), but his teams defend like crazy and oboard like crazy. His ability to take that much elite talent and get it to play together and win effort stats like I mentioned really impresses me. He doesn't coach much different than Frank really as far as style goes.

I strongly agree that Cal is a great coach and generally has well-coached teams.  There are people like dax who strongly disagree and think he just rolls the ball out on the court, but I generally don't have super convincing empirical evidence beyond W/L to argue my position (to be fair neither do they).  Your keys above are a nice start to something though I think.  The sticking point will be to show that these measures aren't also strongly present in teams with amazing talent but "poor coaching".

[Cire]

scoring defense doesn't count.

[husserl]

http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/01/08/freelance-friday-optimal-basketball-theory/

[CHONGS]

Let's strive to be better than the media then.  What would YOU consider to be empirical indicators of a well coached team (or poorly-coached team)?  Of course with the handicap of not using W/L.

Offensively approach 1.1 ppp, eFG% over 48%, TO% under 20%, oboarding over 35% and hopefully pushing 40%. 35% on 3s. FT rate above 40% would be nice.

Defensively under .95 ppp, eFG% of 46% or lower, TO% over 20, oboarding in the low 30s. FT% rate below 40% would be nice.

I am curious, where is KSU 15/16 according to these stats?

[CHONGS]

Also any evidence that this team has improved during the course of the year?