Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Colorado Basketball Win Shares and Adjusted +/- for the last 5 seasons

BehindEnemyLines said:
JG - in your csewe recap, why does the T/O difference show as a negative #? Just curious .....
Click to expand...

I can see how that is confusing, I will see if I can come up with a clearer way to do it. But negative doesn't necessarily mean bad, for Offensive rebounds it does, you want to be in the positive, but for TO's negative is good in that case as they had more than we did.

The one other thing that is misleading sometimes is the offensive rebounding margin, CSU out-rebounded CU by 9 which on the surface level isn't great. But CSU had 9 more field goal attempts than CU and they shot 8.28% worse than CU, so CSU had a lot more opportunities to get offensive rebounds than CU did.
 
Win Shares are updated through last weekends debacle in AZ.

The most disappointing thing to me is SHT is statistically 9th in contribution of Wins behind Talton and Eli.
 
here is the inside the numbers for the Arizona game.

CATEGORY
ColoradoArizonaDIFFERENCE
FGA5965-6
FTA2936-7
True Shot Attempts72.77582.1-9.325
Off Rebs
615-9
TOs1113-2
ORB - TO-52-7
TS%57.03%56.03%1.00%
ORB%
17%36%
TO%14%17%
Points/100 Poss106.41112.82
 
Inside the numbers for the USC game.

CU with 10 less turnovers and getting to the line 20 more times was the major difference in an ugly game. USC out rebounding CU on the offensive glass wasn't good though, they need to do a better job of keeping teams off of the offensive class and grabbing more 2nd chance opportunities of their own.

CATEGORYColoradoUSCDIFFERENCE
FGA5458-4
FTA
26620
True Shot Attempts66.3560.855.5
Off Rebs1015-5
TOs
1323-10
ORB - TO-3-85
TS%49.74%49.30%0.43%
ORB%
29%43%
TO%19%33%
Points/100 Poss95.6586.96
 
Last edited:
Latest Tuesday Truths. CU imrpoved last week, but we still have a long way to go. Fifth in pace in the Pac-12, tied for 8th in offensive points per possession and tied for seventh in defensive points per possession. Puts us at 8th in the conference overall. Hard to argue. Interesting notes - we've gone against the top offense in the conference (Arizona with 1.09 points per possession) along with the 3rd best offense (Washington). Also USC & UCLA are tied for the fourth best offense. So while our D numbers aren't great, I'm not as concerned as the number indicates. On offense, we've gone against the top four defenses in the conference. Washington & UCLA are both allowing 0.94 ppp and leading the way, followed closely by Arizona State (0.96) and Arizona (0.98).

The numbers also show how scary Oregon has been. Putting up the second best numbers in ppp while taking out arguably the top two teams? Yikez.
 
Inside the numbers for the Stanford game. Two things won this game, Askia Booker being efficient and not killing the team true shooting percentage and rebounding (namely dre's 20). Limiting the opponents second chance opportunities and being efficient on the offensive end is a recipe for victory.

CATEGORYColoradoStanfordDIFFERENCE
FGA5764-7
FTA221012
True Shot Attempts67.4568.75-1.3
Off Rebs1183
TOs12102
ORB - TO-1-21
TS%55.60%39.27%16.32%
ORB%33%18%
TO%17%15%
Points/100 Poss108.7078.26
 
Last edited:
Inside the numbers for the CAL game.

There are so many random things about this game I don't even know where to begin. So let's just start from the top. CAL has 25 more FG attempts than CU but still manages to lose by 10. I have no idea how this is feasibly possibly until you look at CU having 10 more turnovers than CAL and somehow having a season high team true shooting % of 70.5%. Again this is a lot to do with Booker, CU is a pretty efficient team outside of Booker, when he shoots at a high % from the floor CU will win games.

CATEGORY
ColoradoCALDIFFERENCE
FGA4772-25
FTA22814
True Shot Attempts
57.4575.8-18.35
Off Rebs5
13-8
TOs201010
ORB - TO-153-18
TS%
70.50%46.83%23.66%
ORB%23%30%
TO%
29%14%
Points/100 Poss112.5098.61
 
Some interesting stuff in the Oregon "Inside the Numbers". It was a season low of possessions (54) for both Oregon and CU. Oregon's previous low was 64 and CU's previous low was Saturday against Utah with 59. Pretty even across the board on numbers. Once again not a great FT% from CU, but the ability to get to the line more than the opponent helps CU win this game.

CATEGORY
ColoradoOregonDIFFERENCE
FGA5258-6
FTA1028
True Shot Attempts56.7558.95-2.2
Off Rebs1416-2
TOs12120
ORB - TO24-2
TS%42.29%39.86%2.43%
ORB%40%47%
TO%22%22%
Points/100 Poss88.8987.04
 
jgisland said:
Some interesting stuff in the Oregon "Inside the Numbers". It was a season low of possessions (54) for both Oregon and CU. Oregon's previous low was 64 and CU's previous low was Saturday against Utah with 59. Pretty even across the board on numbers. Once again not a great FT% from CU, but the ability to get to the line more than the opponent helps CU win this game.

CATEGORYColoradoOregonDIFFERENCE
FGA5258-6
FTA1028
True Shot Attempts56.7558.95-2.2
Off Rebs1416-2
TOs12120
ORB - TO24-2
TS%42.29%39.86%2.43%
ORB%40%47%
TO%22%22%
Points/100 Poss88.8987.04
Click to expand...
wow. crazy close game.
 
You have no idea how happy this makes me.....

Spencer Dinwiddie (@SDinwiddie_25)
2/9/13, 9:51 PM
Synergy is the greatest invention known to man
 
Inside the numbers for the ASU game:

CATEGORY
ColoradoArizona St.DIFFERENCE
FGA57507
FTA18171
True Shot Attempts65.5558.0757.475
Off Rebs19712
TOs15114
ORB - TO4-48
TS%47.29%54.24%-6.95%
ORB%50%24%
TO%25%18%
Points/100 Poss102.00103.00
 
Darth Snow said:
good lord. spencer dinwiddie and Josh Scott's offensive +/- are ridiculous. we are gonna miss him.
Click to expand...

Dinwiddie is having one of the top 5 seasons statistically in the past 10 years. Only Burk's Sophmore campaign is significantly better.

We need to appreciate what we are watching, because we are only going to see it for 1 more year.
 
jgisland said:
Dinwiddie is having one of the top 5 seasons statistically in the past 10 years. Only Burk's Sophmore campaign is significantly better.

We need to appreciate what we are watching, because we are only going to see it for 1 more year.
Click to expand...

He & Roberson are still Top 4 in the P12 according to HnR.

Dan
www.hoopsnerd.com
 
Last edited:
Everything has been updated through today's Arizona P12 Tourney game.

Of note:

Ski's offensive win shares are into the negative. he is statistically taking away wins on the offensive end.

Dinwiddie's good - he's in the Burks/Higgins discussion of good. (better than roby good). (i'll try to do win shares and adjusted +/- for the billups years, interested to see how he stacks up)

There are only 4 guys with positive adjusted +/-. that pretty much sums up the brand of basketball we have watched on the offensive end this year....not good
 
It's interesting comparing this year's numbers to last. Only four players had a positive adjusted ± last year, too, and Dinwiddie's total this year is roughly equal to those four combined. And Ski's numbers are almost identical to last year's. I really expected to see regression in his numbers. Overall though, it really shows how limited this team has been on the offensive end of the floor the last 2 years.
 
jgisland said:
Everything has been updated through today's Arizona P12 Tourney game.

Of note:

Ski's offensive win shares are into the negative. he is statistically taking away wins on the offensive end.

Dinwiddie's good - he's in the Burks/Higgins discussion of good. (better than roby good). (i'll try to do win shares and adjusted +/- for the billups years, interested to see how he stacks up)

There are only 4 guys with positive adjusted +/-. that pretty much sums up the brand of basketball we have watched on the offensive end this year....not good
Click to expand...

Hey jg... was wondering if you're familiar w/ Prof. David Berri's stat model on hoops efficiency? Is it similar to the James method of Win Shares? Also noticed that stalzer was not on the chart. There's all the stats for the NBA, was wondering if there was a model for the college game. Also maybe I missed it but is there a 2012/2013 IER chart for this past season somewhere on this site? thx
 
shang said:
Hey jg... was wondering if you're familiar w/ Prof. David Berri's stat model on hoops efficiency? Is it similar to the James method of Win Shares? Also noticed that stalzer was not on the chart. There's all the stats for the NBA, was wondering if there was a model for the college game. Also maybe I missed it but is there a 2012/2013 IER chart for this past season somewhere on this site? thx
Click to expand...

I am familiar with Berri's model, it's more commonly referred to as Wins Produced or Wins Per 48 (if you're interested, his books are great The Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins). Win Shares and Wins Produced are similar concepts, Wins Produced gives a value per 48 mins (for the NBA). And it takes into account a players position and weights their stats accordingly. This allows for a more level comparison of players across teams.

Wins Produced is virtually impossible to calculate for college basketball, positions are blurred in CBB and level of competition varies so much it's tough to weight the stats correctly to get a meaningful number. Wins Shares take box score stats and attributes a portion of team wins based on the box score stats. It's not perfect, for one it overvalues rebounds. (the argument is just b/c a player got a rebound doesn't mean a teammate couldn't have also got it, giving a player more "theoretical" Win Shares when ultimately the team was going to get the rebound no matter what).

IER - I didn't calculate it for this year. I looked back on it at the beginning of this year and honestly it's a useless stat. I hate it. It values all box score stats equally, you basically have positive and negative values. Positive values would be made shots, rebounds and assists and negative values would be turnovers and missed shots. The problem is that a turnover and a missed free throw are equal, just the same as a rebound and a made 3 would be equal. That just doesn't pass the eye test to me, so I didn't waste time calculating it. If you go back and look at last years IER, some of the games a guy would have a "D or an F" and if you actually watched the game and looked at the box score you would see it just doesn't make sense. As a stat geek and a CU fan it pains me that CU uses this.

I'll check on Stalzer and get him added.
 
Thanks JG... was wondering the differences between the two models... and yes I do agree w/ you on the IER... I would watch a game last year and a week later check on the IER and wonder how in that game spence or carlon would get such a low grade and if not for one of them.. we would have lost...but then on the other side of the coin, would be interesting to see as the staff is using it and to see how their thinking is game to game based on those grades and how minutes are allocated.. just a thought, but thanks for the lead on the book. Do you also do baseball stats? everyone knows the moneyball movie, but i just recently read an old interview from a few years ago w/ Bean and how much more in depth they are going, especially in rating defense for baseball players.
 
That's a decent point about IER and how the coaches may use it to allocate minutes. I'd never really thought about it like that, I hope they aren't that dense to give to much credit to it, but who knows. Maybe if I'm bored one day I'll calculate IER for this year (while drinking heavily and beating my head against the wall).

I follow the baseball stat world on the periphery at best. I know that what they do has progressed a lot from the days of onbase and slugging %. The MIT Sloan Sports Conference is pretty much the mecca for this sort of thing. They archive most of the sessions, here is the Baseball Analytics Panel from this year. I'm sure there's some good info in it on what they are doing today.
 
jgisland said:
That's a decent point about IER and how the coaches may use it to allocate minutes. I'd never really thought about it like that, I hope they aren't that dense to give to much credit to it, but who knows. Maybe if I'm bored one day I'll calculate IER for this year (while drinking heavily and beating my head against the wall).

I follow the baseball stat world on the periphery at best. I know that what they do has progressed a lot from the days of onbase and slugging %. The MIT Sloan Sports Conference is pretty much the mecca for this sort of thing. They archive most of the sessions, here is the Baseball Analytics Panel from this year. I'm sure there's some good info in it on what they are doing today.
Click to expand...

I'll bring the beers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top