Help me understand advanced metrics and our offense

[RhowdyRam02]

It's seemed that this year people have been critical of the offense, saying we really struggle to score. And yet when I went on the bbstate preview for tonight's game (http://bbstate.com/games/2016-02-09/GMU-URI), they describe us as making the most of our possessions. So what gives? Is our offense better then we've been thinking? Is it both, that we don't score well because we have a deliberate offense, but we maximize the lower amount of possessions we do have? Is it that our offense is bad, but that there are so many offenses throughout college basketball that are even worse, that we look good on a curve? Or do you see something in their numbers that makes their evaluation wrong?

[ace]

My quick I should be working but someone mentioned stats answer- tempo is a description and should not be considered a judgement. Teams can play slow and win- Virginia, Villanova in their conferences are two examples. Preference for pace is a thing- most fans prefer to watch faster teams- like Iona last year. This URI team plays slow (contributing factors have been discussed endlessly and range from the coach can't coach offense to need more depth), but they do tend to make the most of their possessions, hence the slow but somewhat efficient descriptor. Right now, Rhode Island is 132 in adjusted offense (better than last year, I believe and 58 in adjusted defense, worse than last year. Being top 100 in both can be a balanced place to be (this year in the A10 that's Dayton, VCU, SJU) but not completely necessary for success.

[section(105)]

For me, it is not so much as the overall stat view of our total possessions and offensive efficiency as it is the unfortunate timing of some possessions in critical times where we fail to score. Examples this year are numerous in late game situations and going into scoring droughts that give teams the opportunity to get back into games........

[ace]

For me, it is not so much as the overall stat view of our total possessions and offensive efficiency as it is the unfortunate timing of some possessions in critical times where we fail to score. Examples this year are numerous in late game situations and going into scoring droughts that give teams the opportunity to get back into games........

Yeah, there are always isolated moments that stick out because of timing. Stats/trends are what they are, though. Some people get feisty about stats but refuse to acknowledge that memory can be faulty. In life, people have biases, and we have a tendency to remember what we want to, especially if it confirms a previously held belief.

When you're talking small sample sizes, things can be really skewed. It doesn't mean those specific times when unfortunate x, y, or z thing happened don't suck. They do.

[Seawrightspostgame]

Offense would be fine if the team won a few more games. URI has probably lost 3-6 games for whatever reason somewhere somehow. More than half of those losses had significant factors that weren't part of the 5-on-5.

[TruePoint]

I also think that part of the disconnect between what the stats say and what people think they are seeing is that when we've played well, we have played VERY efficiently. Almost all of our wins have been blowouts, and you are racking up good possessions in those games. The games that drive people nuts are the ones we lose, which not coincidentally are also going to (generally) be the games where the offense is less efficient.

[URI2006_Andy]

To me the most valuable stat is the +\- of different combination of players. Which combination of 5 players on our team works the best. Brad Stevens said he relied on that with Butler. I'd be curious to know what this team's best combination is.

[Gonebarongone]

To me the most valuable stat is the +\- of different combination of players. Which combination of 5 players on our team works the best. Brad Stevens said he relied on that with Butler. I'd be curious to know what this team's best combination is.

Jim Larranaga has had his staff do that going back years and years, even when you had to do it by hand. Sometimes you have a guy who might not have eye popping numbers but provides spacing or whatnot that doesn't show up in a stat sheet.

I love the efficiency numbers as much as anyone but I think the frustration is that Rhody tends to bury teams they are more talented than but struggle in the 50/50 games. Now, that washes out for every team. Clearly, every teams #s are propped up to some extent by playing the dregs of the schedule. In their losses over the last two years, they have one single game out of 19 where they were above their season long offensive efficiency number (Providence) and some of those are miles away from average. Naturally, that happens in losses but that seems stark. And then you can add in whatever you like for the eye test. As was said above, that brings in bias, but I would think we can all agree that the offense is very predictable in crunch time.
Anyway, I think the best way to use these stats is to let them inform an opinion or even to begin the discussion on something, rather than be the be all, end all.

[ace]

Anyway, I think the best way to use these stats is to let them inform an opinion or even to begin the discussion on something, rather than be the be all, end all.

Does anyone disagree with that?

[URI2006_Andy]

Anyone know about how many schools employ a full time statistical analytics person? I'm sure a lot of schools choose to use whatever available resources they may have towards another need.

[Gonebarongone]

Anyway, I think the best way to use these stats is to let them inform an opinion or even to begin the discussion on something, rather than be the be all, end all.

Does anyone disagree with that?

I think there are people who have a knee jerk reaction to stats that believe that is how they are used.

[SGreenwell]

To me the most valuable stat is the +\- of different combination of players. Which combination of 5 players on our team works the best. Brad Stevens said he relied on that with Butler. I'd be curious to know what this team's best combination is.

It's tough to use them in-season, because by the time you amass a large enough sample size that they're relevant, it's almost over anyway. I think they can be a useful tool from year to year. However, URI's might not be especially valuable because three guys are playing 32+ MPG, and two others are at 27+. It's hard to parse out, say, "How does the team do without Terrell or Garrett?", when the lineups without one of those players might be around 8 minutes per game. Plus-minus tends to be more valuable in the NBA because the larger sample size of games means even bench players can be evaluated with it, eventually. (There is a somewhat similar dynamic at play with evaluating whether clutch hitting is real or not in baseball - By the time you have enough of a sample size of, say, postseason at-bats, most players are in their late 30s and in a decline phase anyway.)

[URI2006_Andy]

I agree its too small of a sample size to impact line-up decisions but I think it has value in helping coaches and players recognize the strengths and weaknesses of a unit as opposed to focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of an individual player. In addition, you start to see the trends at the most crucial time of the year, the end.

For example, say the combination of Watson, Iverson, Four, JT, and JG has a better +/- than the combination of Martin, Iverson, Four, JT, and JG. The coaches and players can then look back at the tapes and see why. Is it because Watson is doing something better than Martin or is it because another player loses his aggressiveness when Martin is in, or is it because teams are doubling Martin taking his value away. In my example, the +/- stats are used not as a reason to play Watson over Martin but as a way to make the unit with Martin more efficient.

[Ramulous]

Can we use advanced metrics to see which referees call the most questionable fouls on Hassan .....

[rambone 78]

Ramulous, the poor guy can hardly ever play at 100% either due to nagging injuries, or nagging refs.

Next season, we will have the 4 headed monster out there, with the 3 bigs helping Hassan.

20 fouls are better than 5, or even 10 if you count Earl's this season.

[Ramulous]

I was criticizing the refs Rambone....not Hassan....a couple of calls tonight against him were pure trash..

[rambone 78]

Ramulous, it seems that Hassan gets a couple bogus fouls every game, which makes a huge difference out there.

Puts him on the bench for far longer than he should be.

And that's very bad for us.