MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Mr. Ypsi]

Well, OF COURSE it's causal!  Nicholas Cage wasn't available to save them from drowning if he was 'on location' - D'oh!

Jeez.  Ya shouldn't have to be a retired stats prof to recognize that!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Actually, 4samuy, you instigated one of the more well-thought-out and useful debates that we've had in awhile. Heck, we even had a bouquet tossed our way from Mr. Hoopsville himself because of it.

Wait... what?

[Gregory Sager]

Actually, 4samuy, you instigated one of the more well-thought-out and useful debates that we've had in awhile. Heck, we even had a bouquet tossed our way from Mr. Hoopsville himself because of it.

Wait... what?

You won't find this on most D1 chat boards... love D3.

I just think it is a shallow and narrow analysis that attempts to apply linear thinking to a multivariate situation.

I never said it was a big bouquet.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Actually, 4samuy, you instigated one of the more well-thought-out and useful debates that we've had in awhile. Heck, we even had a bouquet tossed our way from Mr. Hoopsville himself because of it.

Wait... what?

You won't find this on most D1 chat boards... love D3.

I just think it is a shallow and narrow analysis that attempts to apply linear thinking to a multivariate situation.

I never said it was a big bouquet.

HA! Forgot about that. Been a busy day. LOL

It was a very nice quote.

[izzy stradlin]

I basically stopped reading that article when it said that the objective is to maximize minutes.  From my POV, the objective is to win the game.  So the two factors that should come into play are (1) to what extent does the coach trust his player to not pick up foul number n+1, and (2) what is the relative dropoff between the player and the reserve who will enter the game.  There is also potentially an element of how effectively the coach thinks he can steal minutes if his player is on the bench and he wants to shorten the game (or maintain the relative status quo, score-wise).

The decision on #1 should factor in both how disciplined/smart the coach feels the player can be about avoiding the foul, and also how much risk relative to the norm there might be from the opponent exploiting the player's status (read as: do they have the talent go at the player while he is relatively more exposed).

I don't think you're getting the point.  Of course winning any game is done by maximizing the minutes of the players who are playing the best.  I think that goes without saying.   The general point is that coaches only limit this by benching players with less than 5 fouls.  You can't assume a certain foul rate will continue and even if you could, it doesn't matter if you put a player on the bench-- if you do, he only gets to play less unless you time his minutes so perfectly that he fouls out when time expires.   N, N+1 etc should be irrelevant unless it's the 5th foul.  Obviously there are exceptions where a player has become emotional and is fouling and needs a minute on the bench but that's not what we are talking about.  I think the article goes through a couple caveats.  There is probably a similar article from the fivethirtyeight.com guys but I don't have time to look right now.     

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty, coaches who are most conservative with "foul trouble" over the years (ie 2 fouls in the first half always equals bench), have decreased their probability of winning games.       

I realize this goes against years conventional sports wisdom but there are quite a few similar sports fallacies that are coming light to when smarter people have taken a look at basic evidence rather than relying outdated group-think.

Oh, I'm getting the point.  I just think it is a shallow and narrow analysis that attempts to apply linear thinking to a multivariate situation.  Whomever wrote that article is trying to be 538-like, but is IMO failing badly.

Are there times when leaving a player in as fouls pile up is probably a better call?  Sure.  But there are also times when, because of other factors, a coach is wise to show the player some pine.

And, were you aware that one of the players whose fouls were being "managed" was also actually playing with a lower body injury that, at minimum, limited both his stamina and mobility to at least a moderate degree. Accordingly, his " foul management" was only part of story you are attempting to tell, and his being less than 100% physically necessitated physical as well foul management.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  There are a million considerations like this that may be a bigger or smaller part of the calculus depending on the situation.  They are nowhere in the equation shown in that article.

We're not talking about injuries, ex-girlfriend showed up in the stands, cool breeze went through the gym etc. Of course every real life outcome has multiple variables even if you don't know they exist.  What this is getting at is the arbitrary process of benching a player only because he has hit X number of fouls.  You know what I am talking about and have seen every coach do it.  I haven't watched any North Central College basketball games this year so I wish I didn't use Raridon as an example (I generally think he is a pretty good coach).  Let's just say instead the example Greg gave as to how Bosko handled one of his top players is a great example of what coaches should do and generally don't.

Couple of thoughts here:

(1) I'm not talking about injuries, exes, breezes, etc. either, as you'll see below.

(2) Don't view this as a knee-jerk defense of Todd Raridon -- my comments were agnostic of the coach or team involved.  I think I can show you a couple dozen instances in the past where I've either chirped at the Cardinals' tactics or play, or where I've politely (hopefully) told AndOne that I think he's loco.

And (3) To be clear on this: I'm not poking as much at the theory you are suggesting as I am about how well the article did or did not support the case.  I think there are a number of coaches who are too by-the-book in how they handle this and other common strategic decisions during the course of in-game events, but I also think there is a lot that goes into the decision that is not visible to us as fans.  As random examples, we'll never know if:

- The coach doesn't like the matchup (either of the player to his direct opponent, or between the player and the style of game that unfolds) and feels his player is at risk of picking up fouls #3 and #4 if he leaves the player in
- The coach anticipates that the pace of play will be different in the second half due to some tactical change, and that the risk exposure will be lower then, so sitting the player now offers some perceived strategic advantage
- The coach believes that for whatever reason (talent, matchup, tactics, player savvy) there is a negligible dropoff between the player with two fouls and the sub he enters instead
- The coach sees that his team is already in the bonus and is okay with having the reserve in the game, because he is better at drawing contact/fouls and is a better free-throw shooter
- The coach likes the way the team meshes with the reserve in the game, believes he will get sufficient offense from others on the floor, and anticipates that his offense will stay in sync

Etc. etc. etc.  You get the gist.

The point is that we are not always privy to the factors that lead a coach to make the decisions he makes.  AndOne provided a great example from last night's game -- there was more to the decision than a simple 'two fouls -- sit him down'.  And my very significant beef with the methodology laid out in that article is that it factors none of this into the equation.  The fancy mathematical equations and white paper-aura of the article give it a sheen of gravitas that it does not merit because the premise is too narrow.  Decisions are often situationally-based, and the situation involves a lot more variables than just the two fouls.

When you get overly-simplistic in the variables you consider, you can draw bad conclusions, or assume causality where in fact none actually exists.  Like here:

http://www.tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=359

Again, fouls 3 and 4 are irrelevant and no, I don't get your gist.  You are trying to account for multiple variables and that is exactly your problem.  That is actually the exact opposite of how you should draw any conclusions about causality.  Trust me on this.  I do scientific outcomes based research with regard to life or death for a living.  With regard to data, there is something universally accepted in the scientific community known as the "level of evidence".  To reach the highest levels you want to look at how one variable impacts one outcome.  Period.  The best prospective research for causality is a blinded-controlled trial.  You control and stratify for other variables the best you can and when you can't you collect more data.  You absolutely do not try to factor them in and then draw a conclusion based on them because by default you are less likely to be right.   The question of the argument is does benching a player only because he has picked up a specific number of fouls lead to better outcomes.  The answer is no and other variables are irrelevant to that statement.   

Thanks.

[kiko]

I basically stopped reading that article when it said that the objective is to maximize minutes.  From my POV, the objective is to win the game.  So the two factors that should come into play are (1) to what extent does the coach trust his player to not pick up foul number n+1, and (2) what is the relative dropoff between the player and the reserve who will enter the game.  There is also potentially an element of how effectively the coach thinks he can steal minutes if his player is on the bench and he wants to shorten the game (or maintain the relative status quo, score-wise).

The decision on #1 should factor in both how disciplined/smart the coach feels the player can be about avoiding the foul, and also how much risk relative to the norm there might be from the opponent exploiting the player's status (read as: do they have the talent go at the player while he is relatively more exposed).

I don't think you're getting the point.  Of course winning any game is done by maximizing the minutes of the players who are playing the best.  I think that goes without saying.   The general point is that coaches only limit this by benching players with less than 5 fouls.  You can't assume a certain foul rate will continue and even if you could, it doesn't matter if you put a player on the bench-- if you do, he only gets to play less unless you time his minutes so perfectly that he fouls out when time expires.   N, N+1 etc should be irrelevant unless it's the 5th foul.  Obviously there are exceptions where a player has become emotional and is fouling and needs a minute on the bench but that's not what we are talking about.  I think the article goes through a couple caveats.  There is probably a similar article from the fivethirtyeight.com guys but I don't have time to look right now.     

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty, coaches who are most conservative with "foul trouble" over the years (ie 2 fouls in the first half always equals bench), have decreased their probability of winning games.       

I realize this goes against years conventional sports wisdom but there are quite a few similar sports fallacies that are coming light to when smarter people have taken a look at basic evidence rather than relying outdated group-think.

Oh, I'm getting the point.  I just think it is a shallow and narrow analysis that attempts to apply linear thinking to a multivariate situation.  Whomever wrote that article is trying to be 538-like, but is IMO failing badly.

Are there times when leaving a player in as fouls pile up is probably a better call?  Sure.  But there are also times when, because of other factors, a coach is wise to show the player some pine.

And, were you aware that one of the players whose fouls were being "managed" was also actually playing with a lower body injury that, at minimum, limited both his stamina and mobility to at least a moderate degree. Accordingly, his " foul management" was only part of story you are attempting to tell, and his being less than 100% physically necessitated physical as well foul management.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  There are a million considerations like this that may be a bigger or smaller part of the calculus depending on the situation.  They are nowhere in the equation shown in that article.

We're not talking about injuries, ex-girlfriend showed up in the stands, cool breeze went through the gym etc. Of course every real life outcome has multiple variables even if you don't know they exist.  What this is getting at is the arbitrary process of benching a player only because he has hit X number of fouls.  You know what I am talking about and have seen every coach do it.  I haven't watched any North Central College basketball games this year so I wish I didn't use Raridon as an example (I generally think he is a pretty good coach).  Let's just say instead the example Greg gave as to how Bosko handled one of his top players is a great example of what coaches should do and generally don't.

Couple of thoughts here:

(1) I'm not talking about injuries, exes, breezes, etc. either, as you'll see below.

(2) Don't view this as a knee-jerk defense of Todd Raridon -- my comments were agnostic of the coach or team involved.  I think I can show you a couple dozen instances in the past where I've either chirped at the Cardinals' tactics or play, or where I've politely (hopefully) told AndOne that I think he's loco.

And (3) To be clear on this: I'm not poking as much at the theory you are suggesting as I am about how well the article did or did not support the case.  I think there are a number of coaches who are too by-the-book in how they handle this and other common strategic decisions during the course of in-game events, but I also think there is a lot that goes into the decision that is not visible to us as fans.  As random examples, we'll never know if:

- The coach doesn't like the matchup (either of the player to his direct opponent, or between the player and the style of game that unfolds) and feels his player is at risk of picking up fouls #3 and #4 if he leaves the player in
- The coach anticipates that the pace of play will be different in the second half due to some tactical change, and that the risk exposure will be lower then, so sitting the player now offers some perceived strategic advantage
- The coach believes that for whatever reason (talent, matchup, tactics, player savvy) there is a negligible dropoff between the player with two fouls and the sub he enters instead
- The coach sees that his team is already in the bonus and is okay with having the reserve in the game, because he is better at drawing contact/fouls and is a better free-throw shooter
- The coach likes the way the team meshes with the reserve in the game, believes he will get sufficient offense from others on the floor, and anticipates that his offense will stay in sync

Etc. etc. etc.  You get the gist.

The point is that we are not always privy to the factors that lead a coach to make the decisions he makes.  AndOne provided a great example from last night's game -- there was more to the decision than a simple 'two fouls -- sit him down'.  And my very significant beef with the methodology laid out in that article is that it factors none of this into the equation.  The fancy mathematical equations and white paper-aura of the article give it a sheen of gravitas that it does not merit because the premise is too narrow.  Decisions are often situationally-based, and the situation involves a lot more variables than just the two fouls.

When you get overly-simplistic in the variables you consider, you can draw bad conclusions, or assume causality where in fact none actually exists.  Like here:

http://www.tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=359

Again, fouls 3 and 4 are irrelevant and no, I don't get your gist.  You are trying to account for multiple variables and that is exactly your problem.  That is actually the exact opposite of how you should draw any conclusions about causality.  Trust me on this.  I do scientific outcomes based research with regard to life or death for a living.  With regard to data, there is something universally accepted in the scientific community known as the "level of evidence".  To reach the highest levels you want to look at how one variable impacts one outcome.  Period.  The best prospective research for causality is a blinded-controlled trial.  You control and stratify for other variables the best you can and when you can't you collect more data.  You absolutely do not try to factor them in and then draw a conclusion based on them because by default you are less likely to be right.   The question of the argument is does benching a player only because he has picked up a specific number of fouls lead to better outcomes.  The answer is no and other variables are irrelevant to that statement.   

Thanks.

As it happens, I also spend a lot of time looking at this sort of thing for a living, though in a commercial and not scientific arena.  And that includes understanding what portion of an outcome may be attributable to a specific variable versus another variable when there are a lot of potential drivers (and potential noise) to consider.  Sometimes, in fact, you do have to parse out several variables and try to isolate or otherwise model their causality.

You suggest that the best way to assign causality is to stratify and control for other variables.  I agree with this.  But the method described in the article you linked to did not do this.  It let these other variables be whatever they might be, even though they may have a significant impact (in both the colloquial and the statistical sense) on the outcome.

You also posit that the question is whether benching a player only because he picked up a specific number of fouls leads to better outcomes.  That's a great question.  But the author of that article assumes in all cases in the data set that this was the sole reason for the benching.  My point -- which the examples above were meant to suggest -- is that the author could not possibly know that the foul count was the sole reason for the benching, because the reason for benching the player may involve several variables, and these may not be measurable by anything observable or quantifiable unless you can hear the little voice inside the coach's head.  (And Im not sure I'm quite ready to hear what's going on in the heads of some of our coaches...)  Nonetheless, the author still attributed 100% of the benching to the foul count.

And, fouls 3 and 4 are relevant IMO because they can spark behavior and strategy changes on the part of both teams that impact the game.  It's not necessarily a case of No Impact, No Impact, No Impact, No Impact, Fouled Out as a universal rule.  There is a human element involved that is not likely to show up in the numbers.  YMMV on how much you want to put weight on this, but I think it is an important consideration.  Some of the more successful sports execs these days are those who have embraced advanced statistics while also factoring in the qualitative judgment from their scouting departments.  (Theo Epstein in particular is very vocal about this, and says it was a bit of a journey for him to accept that both are important inputs.)  The numbers only tell part of the story because not everything is measurable or quantitative in nature.

I think we are at a point where we are about to start talking in circles without really bridging the gap in our POVs.  I am moving on from this topic so we can argue instead about where we were when we realized Augie was still present and accounted for in the first division of the conference standings... 

[izzy stradlin]

Again, I'm not making claims about these other variables.  You're countering arguments I'm not making.  If a player becomes an emotional wreck after his first foul ---take him out for being an emotional wreck, not for the foul. 

Agree we are not talking about the same thing and time to move on. 

How about that WIAC news?

[Gregory Sager]

The postponed North Park @ Manchester game has now been officially re-scheduled for Monday, January 16 (Martin Luther King Day), as I had reported earlier was the likely make-up date, with the tip-off scheduled for 5 pm Central.

[4samuy]

A quarter of the way thru the conference schedule Massey ratings have had some movement.

Augustana #9
Ill Wesleyan #15
North Park.  #17
Carthage.    #27
North Central #40
Wheaton.      #98
Elmhurst.     #127
Carroll.        #149
Millikin.       #210


Top three Conferences according to Massey

WIAC. #1
NESCAC #2
CCIW.  #3

Strength of Schedule is by far WIAC #1 and CCIW #2.  Top to bottom WIAC IMO has had the better of it from a non conference stand point, but both conferences will be wars.  Strength of schedule will continue to favor the WIAC, so it will be interesting to see regional rankings when they come out in Feb.

[Titan Q]

Illinois Wesleyan (10-3, 2-2) vs Wheaton (6-6, 2-1), 7:00pm...

Illinois Wesleyan (10-3, 2-2)
G - Brady Rose, 6-3 Jr.  13.9 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 3.2 apg
G - Colin Bonnett, 6-4 So.  9.1 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 2.3 apg
G - Andy Stempel, 6-4 Sr.  11.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 3.1 apg
F - Jaylen Beasley, 6-6 Jr.  5.5 ppg, 4.7 rpg
F - Trevor Seibring, 6-8 Sr.  13.1 ppg, 5.9 rpg

F - Alec Bausch, 6-6 Sr.  9.1 ppg, 5.4 rpg
G - Nick Coleman, 6-1 So.  7.5 ppg, 2.4 apg
G - Austin Amann, 6-3 Sr.  4.3 ppg, 2.3 rpg
C - Tyler Burdine, 6-9 Jr.  2.2 ppg, 2.8 rpg
G - Miles Curry, 6-6 Fr.  2.2 ppg

Wheaton (6-6, 2-1)
G - Luke Peters, 6-3 So.  10.8 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 4.7 apg
G - Aston Francis, 6-1 So.  22.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.8 apg
G - Ricky Samuelson, 6-3 Jr.  14.4 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 1.4 apg
F - Kobe Eichelberger, 6-5 So.  8.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg
F - Jay Spencer, 6-8 Fr.  4.2 ppg, 3.3 rpg

F - Regan Jones, 6-6 So.  6.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg
F - Spencer Peterson, 6-5 Fr. 4.0 ppg
F - Trevor Gunter, 6-6 So.  3.8 ppg, 3.9 rpg
G - Jake Mlagan, 6-2 Fr.  1.8 ppg
G - Zack Kvam, 6-0 Jr. 0.8 ppg


Pantagraph - http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/basketball/men/rose-s-next-win-no-as-titans-face-wheaton/article_8cb301ea-0130-543f-b63b-04ba38005c0a.html

Live video/stats - https://portal.stretchinternet.com/iwu/

WJBC Radio - https://portal.stretchinternet.com/wjbc/

Massey - #13-Illinois Wesleyan 76  #98-Wheaton 65 http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cb2017&sub=11620

[Titan Q]

Ron Rose on Wheaton guard Aston Francis (22 ppg):

"Half his shots are from behind the arc, and not just behind the arc. He may shoot from the Dennie Bridges (Court) logo," said Rose. "I don't know if I've ever seen a kid shoot from deeper. I think Steph Curry is the only other one allowed to take those shots. It's really something."

[4samuy]

Yeah, If I remember correctly, the second conference game of the year at Augustana he hit at least two from about 27 ft.

[Gregory Sager]

Here's where we are right now, according to Massey:

    8. Augustana
  12. Illinois Wesleyan
  19. North Park
  27. Carthage
  41. North Central
  98. Wheaton
128. Elmhurst
155. Carroll
277. Millikin

Massey sez:

@ Carroll 72, Millikin 63 (CU 81%, MU 19%)
North Park 78, @ North Central 77 (NPU 53%, NCC 47%)
@ Illinois Wesleyan 76, Wheaton 65 (IWU 85%, WC 15%)
@ Carthage 82, Elmhurst 73 (CC 79%, EC 21%)

[izzy stradlin]

Watching Wheaton right now reminds me of watching mid-80's Bulls teams.  Not expecting championships or even a ton of wins, but there is one guy who is often unguardable and makes them entertaining.

[Titan Q]

IWU 84
Wheaton 75

http://www.iwusports.com/boxscore.aspx?id=4073&path=mbball

* Brady Rose: 17 pts, 3 assists
* Andy Stempel: 17 pts, 3 reb
* Colin Bonnett: 15 pts, 5 reb
* Nick Coleman: 15 pts 2 reb, 2 assists
* Trevor Seibring: 10 pts, 6 reb

* Aston Francis: 39 pts (15-30 FG), 3 reb, 2 assists
* Ricky Samuelson: 15 pts, 6 reb
* Luke Peters: 11 pts, 4 reb, 4 assists

Despite an incredible 1st half (28 points) and overall game by Wheaton star Aston Francis, IWU played very well tonight and controlled this game pretty much from start to finish.  The Titan offense was really clicking tonight - great ball movement, spacing, and shooting.

Congratulations to IWU head coach Ron Rose on win #200.  Rose becomes the 3rd IWU coach to reach that milestone and in achieving it in game 298 he got there faster than Dennie Bridges (307)  and Jack Horenberger (370).  Different eras, different factors, but an indication of how good a job Rose has done for 10.5 years now.  Very appropriately, a pie in the face for IWU's head coach tonight - https://twitter.com/IWUhoopscom/status/817929643412099074.

Big game in Rock Island Wednesday - IWU (3-2) at Augustana (3-1).  Two very even teams.