2018-2019 Season Review

Discussion in 'Butler Basketball' started by MasterSplinter, Mar 21, 2019.

  1. NCJon

    NCJon Well-Known Member VIP Member

    Money:
    $7,780
    IU beat Purdue for the 1979 NIT title.
     
  2. tedfrye

    tedfrye Active Member

    Money:
    $273
    Nebraska Basketball coach got fired today but here is why I like him. “I'm gonna get in that car, go hang out with my wife and my kids and my dog, and have a cold Coors Light," Miles said after learning he had been fired as Nebraska's basketball coach.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops mobile app
     
  3. TheDawgDub95

    TheDawgDub95 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $1,383
    Lack of free throw attempts and lack of made twos were due to an inability of too many of our guys to put the ball on the floor.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Butler Hoops mobile app
     
  4. Eric

    Eric Well-Known Member VIP Member

    Money:
    $3,384
    He had me until the Coors Light. Life's too short to drink nasty beer.

    Sent from my SM-G892U using Butler Hoops mobile app
     
  5. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $4,246
    So what’s your explanation for why the data is wrong?


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  6. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $4,246
    The metrics include all of those things. Players fouling out is captured in net efficiency.

    I just want to say that I really appreciate the posters on here who come on here with an open mind.

    The amount of time people here who want to deny facts so that they can revel in the safety of their antiquated views of basketball is simply stunning to me.

    I woke up this morning with absolutely no position on free throw rate, but saw something that intrigued me, so I went and did some research and found some stats/information that was totally not what I expected, so I questioned it amongst my intelligent basketball circle and did some follow up math and it makes sense.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t be shocked, but I am at how when data conflicts with what people believe they either attack the messenger for presenting it, or outright reject rather than taking the opportunity to rethink their position.

    For those of you who enjoy the new perspectives, I salute you.



    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  7. tedfrye

    tedfrye Active Member

    Money:
    $273
    Dawgs2014. You’re way over thinking it. Relax. Your analytical mind is leading me to the same place Tim Miles is tonight. Coors Lite! Get to the FT Line!!! Game Over.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops mobile app
     
  8. bumba

    bumba Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $8,311
    The game is played on a basketball court, not a computer keyboard. Metrics alone don't take into consideration how coaching strategy can change once key players get into foul trouble.
     
  9. Dawgdad

    Dawgdad Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $437
    Analytics definitely has a role in basketball today. However, it is just a piece in the puzzle.
    In this discussion, it may very be that free throw rate does not equate to performance of a team overall as quality shots probably equate to offensive efficiency as much as getting to the line (I honestly don’t know but just my hunch)
    But, in our case this year, I do believe it would have beneficial to attack the basket more because we often settled for poor shots as the shot clock expired.
    That, I believe, is the point.
    Is getting to the line better than an open layup or a quality three? Probably not
    Is getting to the line better than a fade away 18 foot shot as shot clock expires? Definitely Yes
     
    Tentozen likes this.
  10. bumba

    bumba Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $8,311
    Agree, all season long he has argued about one isolated metric after another without realizing they're correlated with many other variables that happen inside the game. I've never seen a poster be so adamant that past data determines future outcomes.
     
    willisbrown and PSUButlerFan like this.
  11. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $4,246
    This is a very reasonable conclusion which the data supports. I think we would have been better attacking the basket more too, but I think the reason we couldn’t was how much they packed it in as a result of AT not being able to shoot. It’s why I wanted him to shoot even if it resulted in a miss.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  12. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $4,246
    I mean just absolutely none of this true.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  13. bumba

    bumba Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $8,311
    Remember the hissy fit you threw about this and encouraged me to find a new school to root for? You have no idea how many posts you've written that contradict yourself.
     
    willisbrown likes this.
  14. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $4,246
    I guess we agree none of what you said previously is true.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
  15. MasterSplinter

    MasterSplinter Active Member

    Money:
    $449
    I appreciate the analysis. It's an interesting proposition that I've not really considered before, and I too would have thought FT rate is quite essential to winning. You've poked some holes in that thinking. I wonder if that is discussed much among the metrics bball community? Any Synergy subscribers have access to a relevant metric? If we have made the transition to the more valued 3 pt shot vs mid range jumpers, then why shouldn't we make the same leap in terms of FTs vs fgs (2 or 3) if that is indeed the case? To take it to the extreme, if the expected point value is greater for taking a fg every possession versus a mix of fgs and fts, then why aren't more teams exploiting this and emphasizing less fts? Or maybe we are on the cusp of this? Or maybe getting into foul trouble has a deceiving impact that leads us to believe fts are important as a proxy for foul trouble and thus dictating who can play in the game? I'm not sure of the answer but it's intriguing.

    Also, what does def FT rate say about winning as it's impact is different from off FT rate? Does it matter more to not allow teams to get to the line versus getting your team to the line? A quick look at some tables seems to show that def FT rate has a much greater impact on winning than off FT rate. Haven't done any proper analysis on that though.
     
  16. willisbrown

    willisbrown Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $9,005
    No ****ing ****. It's ******* annoying as ****.
     
  17. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $4,246
    So good questions-I have a couple thoughts.

    1) synergy doesn’t have metrics, it has tons and tons tons and tons of raw stats. You want to know how Anyone did on hook shots from the left side? You got it. Runners from the middle? Yup. How did guys they were guarding shoot ok mid range jumpers against them? It’s all there. Then there are team stats for stats out of time out, press break, end of shot clock. Then there is link to video for all of this. There is a also a filter tool that I found really powerful and you can even sort by defender.

    2) I didn’t find anything that suggested free throws were actually worse than a fg attempt, just some explanations and mathematical justifications as to why there was no correlation between offensive productivity and winning with free throw rate. I’d need more data (who shoots most ft’s and how they do from the floor mostly) to calculate the exact marginal value of a ft or fga. Obviously the better the offensive player/team from the floor and the worse from the foul line, the less beneficial the ft’s.

    3)I did see some evidence of the analytics embracing one and one as a liability for the first time this year. There was an article written by someone I know saying Butler should have fouled at the end of the IU game with the score tied and one and one, bc they have 35% chance of no points agains, and around 50% chance of one point or no points, and then they’d have the ball with a chance to win. The math checks out. I don’t think of Tom Izzo as someone on the analytical forefront, but I think I saw him use this strategy twice this year. Once was at Purdue where with about 4 mins left he used all his one and ones on purpose to foul Nojel Eastern. Eastern hit them all, but mathematically it was the correct decision. I forget the other time I saw him do this, but I’m pretty confident there was another instance.

    I also think that the development of the narrative around free throws being intrinsically “good” for an offense is interesting, because we don’t think of free throws as being intrinsically “bad” for a defense. I can’t claim innocence to having the same beliefs until I did the research, but if I think critically about the matter, how many times has my team been on defense and I’ve thought “good foul” or something to that extent? Countless. I obviously believe a “good foul” to be a foul that’s more beneficial to the defense than the alternative should they not have fouled and that concession causes the narrative of drawing fouls to be intrinsically “good” to take on water.

    4) I actually ran the analysis on defensive free throw rate as you questioned as well. It was significantly higher though not overly significant. I want to say it was around .2, but it’s on my work computer and I don’t recall exactly. What I think that suggests is that bad defenses foul more often, which is consistent with the explanation above that defenses foul when they are compromised. It could also have some influence from fouling when behind. I think we could measure that by measuring free throw percentage against, because intentional fouls latenin halves tend to occur on guys who the offense wants shooting the ball.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  18. estar20dawg

    estar20dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $5,099
    I think it also depends from situation to situation. You made the claim of 1.3-1.5 points per FT attempts, but if it's Herro that's a guaranteed 2 in my book and even if you want to argue well he's a 94% foul shooter and hasn't missed since December it's still not a guaranteed 2 let's call it 1.94 points per possession, as a coach I'll take 1.5 points per possession guaranteed uncontested vs a team shooting even say 40% from the field and 35% from 3. Not to add in for turnovers and live ball turnovers which lead to momentum changing plays that can't be accounted for using this statistical method. I get the math and understand the point, yes if you foul Tacko Fall every time that is going to be a net positive, but you also only have a finite number of fouls you want to exchange for said net positive. There are a lot of variables that just aren't accounted for using straight up correlation analysis and metrics saying this 1 particular thing has no barring on whether a team is good or not. At the end of the day as a coach you want a good opportunity to score on every possession. I'll take controlling tempo, not committing live ball turnovers, and a 1.5 point per possession guaranteed offense any day of the week, yes I know that equates to 60 points/game but if you limit number of possessions and no turnovers/run outs, and creating foul trouble for them, I still think that puts you in a good place overall.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
    willisbrown likes this.
  19. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $4,246
    Yes if you can get 1.5 points per possession you should take it. If you are Tyler Herro or Jordan Bohannon, you want to be at the line every single time. But the counter to your point is that Tyler Herro has the single lowest free throw rate on that team. Which is the “who gets fouled” component. UK’s highest free throw rate players are Nick Richards and P.J. Washington who shoot in the high sixties.

    Also, I think taking shots that lead to foul situations have a higher turnover frequency than a common possession because they are inherently in traffic and the defender is often reaching for the ball. I can’t prove that point, but trying to get fouled does present risks that I don’t think are less than a standard play.

    I’m not saying that free throws are bad by any means, I’m saying that getting free throws has not shown any effect on winning, and the explanation is above. They also haven’t shown any contribution towards losing, so taking the stance against them is also unfounded.

    The only position that I think the data conclusively supports is “wrong” is that we lost because of a lack of free throws. I hope that makes sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  20. estar20dawg

    estar20dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $5,099
    Yes, Herro has the lowest FT rate but he's the one taking them at the end of games. To me that's the definition of winning basketball plays, get Herro and Bohannon the ball at late game, clock situations you generally know it's going to have positive result. With the new freedom of movement initiative and referees calling more touch fouls and phantom fouls I don't think a team has to force bad shots to attempt to get to the line, just by playing downhill aggressive drive and kick, moving the ball and attacking you will get to the bonus by the 10 minute mark easy. I think there was a game this year alone that we put the opposing team in the bonus just 2 and half minutes into the second half.

    We both know how any statistics can be swayed to make a point and you are correct by just plugging the raw numbers in, the metrics doesn't bare out that FT's matter much to the bottom line of winning vs losing but, situational speaking I think there's definitely something to "winning time" being aggressive and driving to create contact
     

Share This Page