Well said.
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
- Thread starter jgisland
- Start date
Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. Rebounding is absolutely overvalued in Win Shares IMO. For those who care the argument against Win Shares over valuing rebounds (using CU as an example) is that just because Dre is a great rebounder doesn't mean that if he wasn't on the floor CU wouldn't still get a majority of those rebounds. People argue (and I agree) that individual rebounds should be given a lesser weight and a team rounding metric should be given to everybody based on team rebounds accumulated when they are in the game.
So for example, Dufault may have done a great job boxing out a guy and is in position to get the rebound but Dre outjumps him for it. If it wasn't for Dufault's box out Dre doesn't get the rebound and if Dre wasn't in the game Dufault gets the board. So Dre gets all the credit, but Dufault actually got Dre that board.
What CU has to replace in Win Shares is nothing compared to last year. While the loss of Carlon/Dufault/Nate will matter, CU was made up of essentially role players, Dre may be an anchor on D, but he is an offensive role player. Filling in those gaps are a lot easier than filling Alec and Higgins shoes were.
Dre's ball?
All characters in my example do not represent real life situations or actual events, it was purely a theoretical example of events that could happen in a basketball game.
shang
Member
thx goose, excellent read...
For all of your stat loving pleasure: CBS Sports Podcast with Ken Pomeroy and John Gasaway from Basketball Prospectus
Wow I never imagined it was that bad. He would help the team at lot more by looking for the pass and shooting mostly layups and dunks.
62.1?!? Holy ****...
Pachoops and I went around a little on Twitter about this today and I figured a thread dedicated to advanced stats is as good a place as any to link to this article.
To give you a high level overview, Jeff MacGregor argues that stats and probability is ruining the excitement and the outcome of sports, b/c we know so much in advance. It is a fair argument to be made. The problem is that personally I think that stats enhance the game and my enjoyment and level of understanding. It doesn't mean that their aren't unquantifiable things that are just as interesting. There just seems to be too much of US vs.THEM in the stats world, they don't need to be mutually exclusive.
To give you a high level overview, Jeff MacGregor argues that stats and probability is ruining the excitement and the outcome of sports, b/c we know so much in advance. It is a fair argument to be made. The problem is that personally I think that stats enhance the game and my enjoyment and level of understanding. It doesn't mean that their aren't unquantifiable things that are just as interesting. There just seems to be too much of US vs.THEM in the stats world, they don't need to be mutually exclusive.
I agree with JGI!
pachoops
PacHoops Blogger
I agree with JG, too! US vs. THEM helps no one. Ask Hamas and Israel about it. Those guys share like 85% of the same book and can't stop dropping bombs on eac hother. I'll stop there as we're already on a contentious enough topic.
Point is, as JG says, the poetry and excitement of sports is defined by what we know of the game. What we can be heightened by stats of all shapes and colors. The more we know, the more we can understand, appreciate and get excited about the intricacies of sport. Before sabermetrics, I'd have agreed with most and said Derek Jeter was a terrific defensive shortstop. Advanced stats tell us otherwise and now I watch with a keener eye. But that doesn't take away, not one bit, the catch he made running into the stands against Boston or that with each ball in the hole I think he might make that running, leaping play he's made his own. You know the play.
And look, now I've sparked a Yankees suck debate.
AND THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF IT ALL! None of this is rational and for that we're fans - to have our emotions tweaked like nothing else can. And the numbers don't help! They raise our expectations sky high only to let us fall without a parachute. They'll rationalize for us in unequivocal terms that a fourth seeded team that finished fifth in the Pac with seven conference losses couldn't beat a vaunted and loaded 1997 Kansas squad let alone two other number one seeds en route to an improbable national title. But that team did.
In the end, I don't want the debate to be black and white. I'm still tuning into the game whether or not team X is supposed to win by a trillion by KenPom, Vegas, or your standards. I want to see what happens. I'll just have a better idea of how surprised - or otherwise - to be at the outcome.
Point is, as JG says, the poetry and excitement of sports is defined by what we know of the game. What we can be heightened by stats of all shapes and colors. The more we know, the more we can understand, appreciate and get excited about the intricacies of sport. Before sabermetrics, I'd have agreed with most and said Derek Jeter was a terrific defensive shortstop. Advanced stats tell us otherwise and now I watch with a keener eye. But that doesn't take away, not one bit, the catch he made running into the stands against Boston or that with each ball in the hole I think he might make that running, leaping play he's made his own. You know the play.
And look, now I've sparked a Yankees suck debate.
AND THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF IT ALL! None of this is rational and for that we're fans - to have our emotions tweaked like nothing else can. And the numbers don't help! They raise our expectations sky high only to let us fall without a parachute. They'll rationalize for us in unequivocal terms that a fourth seeded team that finished fifth in the Pac with seven conference losses couldn't beat a vaunted and loaded 1997 Kansas squad let alone two other number one seeds en route to an improbable national title. But that team did.
In the end, I don't want the debate to be black and white. I'm still tuning into the game whether or not team X is supposed to win by a trillion by KenPom, Vegas, or your standards. I want to see what happens. I'll just have a better idea of how surprised - or otherwise - to be at the outcome.
Yep. I love understanding the numbers. It just makes it all the more exciting for me when a true underdog makes it happen because I know it's purely about "They wanted it so much more". That's a cool thing. No stats will ever predict USA over the USSR at Lake Placid, NC State taking out Phi Slamma Jamma for the NCAA hoops title, the Giants taking down the undefeated Patriots in the Superbowl, etc. The stats just make me appreciate the moments more. And beyond that, it makes a lot of games more intriguing to me before they start because I see possible upsets in games between powers and have-nots that I'd otherwise pay little attention.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Okay stat-geeks, what do your magic numbers say about our defense?
They say it's good, top 10% in the NCAA good.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Wow.
Me too. A week off. Reading the press clippings. Playing a solid team that won't beat itself. Very nervous.
A couple of things of note on the updated numbers:
Josh Scott is off to a tremendous start
These numbers are early but Dre's first couple of games struggling on offense are killing his numbers, however.he was much better against Air Force.
IER continues to be a TERRIBLE metric to rate/evaluate players individual games
Dinwiddie is getting to the line at the 5th BEST RATE IN THE NCAA
Josh Scott is off to a tremendous start
These numbers are early but Dre's first couple of games struggling on offense are killing his numbers, however.he was much better against Air Force.
IER continues to be a TERRIBLE metric to rate/evaluate players individual games
Dinwiddie is getting to the line at the 5th BEST RATE IN THE NCAA
A new addition to the advanced stats stuff this year, we'll see how it goes and how long I actually keep this up.
First and foremost, I stole this concept from Jeff Haley, he writes for a UT blog and is responsible for the site hoop-math.com. But I think it is a great way to statistically see exactly where and how an outcome of a game was derived. If you want to know way more info on how this is all derived, check out this post. This basically breaks down his "how to read a box score post" in a neat simple table.
So what exactly happened last night and how did CU manage to pull off a win? Statistically everything was pretty close, but there were two main factors (in bold below) that decided the outcome. CU's ability to get to the line and their better shooting efficiency down the stretch.
First and foremost, I stole this concept from Jeff Haley, he writes for a UT blog and is responsible for the site hoop-math.com. But I think it is a great way to statistically see exactly where and how an outcome of a game was derived. If you want to know way more info on how this is all derived, check out this post. This basically breaks down his "how to read a box score post" in a neat simple table.
So what exactly happened last night and how did CU manage to pull off a win? Statistically everything was pretty close, but there were two main factors (in bold below) that decided the outcome. CU's ability to get to the line and their better shooting efficiency down the stretch.
| CATEGORY | Colorado | Texas Southern | DIFFERENCE |
| FGA | 59 | 73 | -14 |
| FTA | 44 | 20 | 24 |
| True Shot Attempts (FGA + 0.475 x FTA) | 79.9 | 82.5 | -2.6 |
| Off Rebs | 12 | 12 | 0 |
| TOs | 13 | 12 | 1 |
| ORB - TO | -1 | 0 | -1 |
| TS% | 0.53 | 0.48 | 0.05 |
| ORB% | 34% | 36% | |
| TO% | 17% | 18% | |
| Points/100 Poss | 108.97 | 102.56 |
Last edited:
Wayyyy too close for comfort.
A statistical recap of the Wyoming game.
Turnovers and Free Throw attempts tell a lot of the story in this game. CU shot much better than they did last year against Wyoming, but you can't lose the TO battle like they did and expect a W on the road.
| CATEGORY | Colorado | Wyoming | DIFFERENCE |
| FGA | 58 | 50 | 8 |
| FTA | 15 | 33 | -18 |
| True Shot Attempts | 65.1 | 65.7 | -0.55 |
| Off Rebs | 12 | 8 | 4 |
| TOs | 17 | 9 | 8 |
| ORB - TO | -5 | -1 | -4 |
| TS% | 52.98% | 57.86% | -4.89% |
| ORB% | 33% | 26% | |
| TO% | 25% | 13% | |
| Points/100 Poss | 101.47 | 111.76 |
Turnovers and Free Throw attempts tell a lot of the story in this game. CU shot much better than they did last year against Wyoming, but you can't lose the TO battle like they did and expect a W on the road.
Statistical Recap of the CSU Game.
A couple of interesting things to look at here. CU got out rebounded fairly handily on the offensive glass but they were able to compensate for those loss of second chance scoring opportunities by limiting their TO's (a season low 7). It all came down to shooting, CU was able to have a True Shooting % of 54.07% while CSU was only able to muster up 45.8% shooting for the game.
CU obviously played a great first half and got out to a great lead, but the second half shooting wasn't great (not from anywhere, 2pt FG's, 3pt FG's or the FT line).
| CATEGORY | Colorado | CSU | DIFFERENCE |
| FGA | 50 | 59 | -9 |
| FTA | 31 | 16 | 15 |
| True Shot Attempts | 64.725 | 66.6 | -1.875 |
| Off Rebs | 9 | 18 | -9 |
| TOs | 7 | 14 | -7 |
| ORB - TO | 2 | 4 | -2 |
| TS% (True shooting %) | 54.07% | 45.80% | 8.28% |
| ORB% (off reb %) | 27% | 46% | |
| TO% (Turn Over %) | 11% | 23% | |
| Points/100 Poss | 112.90 | 98.39 |
A couple of interesting things to look at here. CU got out rebounded fairly handily on the offensive glass but they were able to compensate for those loss of second chance scoring opportunities by limiting their TO's (a season low 7). It all came down to shooting, CU was able to have a True Shooting % of 54.07% while CSU was only able to muster up 45.8% shooting for the game.
CU obviously played a great first half and got out to a great lead, but the second half shooting wasn't great (not from anywhere, 2pt FG's, 3pt FG's or the FT line).
| CU | ||||||
| 1st Half | 2nd Half | |||||
| FG% | 16-27 | 59.30% | FG% | 7-23 | 30.40% | |
| 3FG% | 4-6 | 66.70% | 3FG% | 2-7 | 28.60% | |
| FT% | 6-6 | 100% | FT% | 12-25 | 48% |
| CSU | ||||||
| 1st Half | 2nd Half | |||||
| FG% | 9-30 | 30.00% | FG% | 12-29 | 41.40% | |
| 3FG% | 4-12 | 33.30% | 3FG% | 2-7 | 28.60% | |
| FT% | 0-0 | 0% | FT% | 13-16 | 81.30% |
Last edited:
wish you could break out the shooting #s by putting the Mayor up next to the rest of the team... I think that would show you just how crucial he was.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
JG - in your csewe recap, why does the T/O difference show as a negative #? Just curious .....