Awesome Analytics Article by Chris Harry

I know all of this is typically clumsy UAA hype, and I am rooting for success, but this is starting to come across like Wolf of Wall Street

 

Don’t know if it will work at a high major, but that article is like porn for me. I run numbers like that first set on the BYU game in my head all the time on all sorts of things, including sports. I was literally smiling as I read it because it’s exactly how I think.
But analytics is one of the reasons I yell so much here about bad shots. Each bad shot in a game is roughly a loss of .6 points, if a good shot is a 50 percent make and a bad one is 20. So even just five bad shots in a whole game is a loss of three points to your final score, how many games might that alone have won us this year? And that’s before bad shots often meaning run outs the other way.
Then offensive rebounds, because they generally come close to the basket, each one you give up is a point roughly. So the difference in a game between 5 and 10 ORs is five points.
Each turnover is a point roughly, if a teams adjusted offense is around a point per possession.

Now think back to our last few seasons, and the absolute droves of points we gave away in those three categories. It’s why I was so down on White - he didn’t understand or care about the basics of what wins games.

Even if this staff bombs out in three years, at least they understand what wins and loses games, and where to focus.
Combine that with a real offense again, and I will maybe actually enjoy watching us play. Fingers crossed.

 

You'd be surprised . . . reading the article @GatorPlanet linked for us, I noticed I use a similar type of thinking every morning day trading. I work from home and not Wall Street though. LOL!

 

I am not an analytics guru, but there are some early efforts from Golden that I really like.
You make a good pint about “bad shots”, but oddly… Golden said he never gets upset over shot selection, and is mystified by coaches who do. That was surprising to me, as he is obviously so calculated.

 

Isn't Vasser a women's school?

 

That tells me he understands the balance between analytics and game flow. Sometimes things happen within the context of a game that forces a player to take a "bad shot" becsuse that "bad shot" is the best shot under those circumstances. Assuming that's the case then it is music to my ears knowing that he isn’t all about analytics but understands there is something to game flow as well.

 

I do like his opinion on playing guys with 2 fouls in the first half vs sitting them. But even, that if the refs are calling everything, you probably have to sit the kid.

There is so much game to game variation in college hoops -- home vs away, how are the refs calling the game, are the shots falling, defensive intensity, are you making free throws etc.

But I still think, it comes down to players -- look at the teams left, analytics schmanalitics, besides nova, these teams are loaded with talent. You have to have talent to win college ball games in real conference. Players and experienced coach wins every time over money ball. If your player can't hit shots, analytics don't mean squat, if the players can't stop the opposition from taking wide open threes, your gonna lose. If the players dont' hit free throws, your going to lose.

I think that is why coach K is so successful, he doesn't over think it -- he changes his system to the type of players on his roster, limits his bench as the season progresses into the tourney, plays his top 7 players - defends, rebounds, pounds the paint and shoots open looks.

 

This is a lot like successful poker thinking.

 

I saw that too. My hope is that every day in practice and in film sessions he stresses what winning basketball is and isn’t, including bad shots. So by game time bad shots are rare and he can let them play. We will see though I guess.

 

Sounds more like the way the Tampa Bay Rays do things but with more resources to work with.

 

A “bad shot” being the only available or best shot… wasn’t the context of his comment.
He really pushed back against the idea of critiquing or getting upset at players bc of shot selection.
There is part of that approach I like…. bc freedom and confidence is important. But it did strike me as somewhat in conflict with his very calculated approach. And again… I kinda liked that too, bc I want these kids to play basketball and not do math! Lol!

 

Often the bad shot, is the shot not taken.

But honesty, how often in hoops are you watching and your like "man terrible shot", then swish......

 

lol, your post resulted in a double-take to make sure I hadn't written it earlier today before coffee. I absolutely love CTG's analytical approach. The next couple of years are going to be so much fun to see how this unfolds. I can't wait for the opportunity to pour over all of the numbers vs strategy/tactics.

 

And lest you all think I was exaggerating on how much I think that way or will enjoy this, this was my post on the odds of us getting into the tourney before the SEC tournament.

2022 NCAA Tournament Outlook

 

agreed, analytics are great for showing patterns and trends to help inform coaching decisions, but they can't be the sole basis for those decisions - coaches always have to mesh that information with what they're actually seeing on the court and find a happy medium. Which like you said, it sounds like coach Golden has a good handle on that.

can't wait for next season to start.

 

If you liked that piece, you are gonna love this

 

Or, two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.