MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[ziggy]

Oh no!  It's not formula Friday again, is it?  Why do we have to talk all these stats and percentages and what ifs?  I just want to go to Hope and punch some one in the nose.

It looks like we missed Theoretical Thursday and are making up for it now.

[HopeConvert]

I would think, however, that the differentials are misleading, so you couldn't operate with a flat percentage. And for statistical purposes, you can't compare a percentage with an absolute number. Take Wednesday's Hope/Albion tilt. They had 59 rebounds between the two teams, but took 93 shots from the field, along with 41 free throws. This would suggest that a rebound is more valuable than a shot, even if we adjust for good shots versus bad shots. However, between the two teams they made 41 shots, and added in 28 free throws. This suggests that a made shot from the field is more valuable than a rebound (assuming value is purely numerical). Hope made one less shot shot than Albion, but grabbed thirteen more rebounds. So are rebounds then more valuable than shots? Well, one game is not a huge data point, but that aside the big difference in the game was free throw shooting, where Hope was 19-24 while Albion was 9-17.

Of course, a good shot is going to end in either a made basket, or free throw attempts, while a bad shot will likely lead to a rebound for the other team.

If the question is "Which single statistic is most likely to be a predictor of victory?" and SAC and OK say it's not rebounds (I'm still not convinced), perhaps it's free throw differential.

And, perhaps, it's Friday afternoon.

[KnightSlappy]

I would think, however, that the differentials are misleading, so you couldn't operate with a flat percentage. And for statistical purposes, you can't compare a percentage with an absolute number. Take Wednesday's Hope/Albion tilt. They had 59 rebounds between the two teams, but took 93 shots from the field, along with 41 free throws. This would suggest that a rebound is more valuable than a shot, even if we adjust for good shots versus bad shots. However, between the two teams they made 41 shots, and added in 28 free throws. This suggests that a made shot from the field is more valuable than a rebound (assuming value is purely numerical). Hope made one less shot shot than Albion, but grabbed thirteen more rebounds. So are rebounds then more valuable than shots? Well, one game is not a huge data point, but that aside the big difference in the game was free throw shooting, where Hope was 19-24 while Albion was 9-17.

Of course, a good shot is going to end in either a made basket, or free throw attempts, while a bad shot will likely lead to a rebound for the other team.

If the question is "Which single statistic is most likely to be a predictor of victory?" and SAC and OK say it's not rebounds (I'm still not convinced), perhaps it's free throw differential.

And, perhaps, it's Friday afternoon.

I'll take point differential. 

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Hmmm - continuing to use the Hope@Albion game for reference - which made more difference in the outcome - Snuggerud's tipped rebound to Bunn after a missed free throw, or Bunn making the next 2 FTs to put the lead at 2 possessions (5 points)?  Obviously you need one to have the other, so I think this is one of those unaswerable questions...



... Like did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?

[Civic Minded]

Is there a mercy rule for formula Friday???   

[oldknight]

I would think, however, that the differentials are misleading, so you couldn't operate with a flat percentage. And for statistical purposes, you can't compare a percentage with an absolute number. Take Wednesday's Hope/Albion tilt. They had 59 rebounds between the two teams, but took 93 shots from the field, along with 41 free throws. This would suggest that a rebound is more valuable than a shot, even if we adjust for good shots versus bad shots. However, between the two teams they made 41 shots, and added in 28 free throws. This suggests that a made shot from the field is more valuable than a rebound (assuming value is purely numerical). Hope made one less shot shot than Albion, but grabbed thirteen more rebounds. So are rebounds then more valuable than shots? Well, one game is not a huge data point, but that aside the big difference in the game was free throw shooting, where Hope was 19-24 while Albion was 9-17.

Of course, a good shot is going to end in either a made basket, or free throw attempts, while a bad shot will likely lead to a rebound for the other team.

If the question is "Which single statistic is most likely to be a predictor of victory?" and SAC and OK say it's not rebounds (I'm still not convinced), perhaps it's free throw differential.

And, perhaps, it's Friday afternoon.

I'm not aware of any detailed research, but I've got to believe that someone has created an acceptable mathematical model for calculating the relative importance of these two important statistics (I don't remember if sac had any detail). When I posited that shooting percentage was a slightly more important statistic than rebounding, I mentioned that I was open to correction in that opinion so if anyone can find any formal study on the issue let us know. My opinion is merely based upon decades (literally) of playing and watching basketball games. It just seems to me that teams that shoot better than their opponents are tougher to beat than those who outrebound the opposition. I've also noticed that championship caliber teams almost always have excellent field goal percentages (usually 48% and above) but they are not necessarily superior rebounding clubs.

Without doing a significant amount of research it's hard to know for sure because we all are using very limited amounts of data and each of us can refer to some data that supports our presuppositons. It's a lot like trying to prove or disprove global warming theories merely by tracking the last 100 years of temperatures in Grand Rapids. It seems to me that one issue that needs to be dealt with is my presupposition that as shooting percentages change, the value of each rebound changes too.  Does the fact that there are more rebounds available as shooting percentage drop and fewer rebounds available as shooting percentages rise change the value of each rebound? Intuitively, I would say yes but I can't prove it.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Does the fact that there are more rebounds available as shooting percentage drop and fewer rebounds available as shooting percentages rise change the value of each rebound? Intuitively, I would say yes but I can't prove it.

Goood question - now add in the effect of the pace of the game.  Some games each team puts up 40-50 shots, some games 70-80 (let's not even talk about Grinnell). I would think that the total number of shots taken would also have to play a part in this.  Maybe we need to compere shooting % with rebounding % - maybe that "puts them on a more level playing field"?

Oh good grief, we're simply going to end up at the efficeincy calculation again.     

[sac]

This isn't the most indepth study on this topic I'm sure but its all I could come up with........

http://www.bostonsportshub.com/ncaa_trends2.htm

PS  FG% it is, but the difference almost doesn't seem conclusive enough to me.

[Knightmare]

What happened to the plans for Calvin to webcast video of the bball games?  I only see on Calvin's website links for the live stats scoreboard and audio broadcast for tonight's Calvin vs. Albion game at VNA but nothing about a video feed.  Anybody have info?

[realist]

Standout:  When it says, "Stretch Internet Audio Broadcast"  it has always been to the video link.  Matter of terminology.

[KnightSlappy]

What happened to the plans for Calvin to webcast video of the bball games?  I only see on Calvin's website links for the live stats scoreboard and audio broadcast for tonight's Calvin vs. Albion game at VNA but nothing about a video feed.  Anybody have info?

http://www.calvin.edu/sports/

then lick on "listen and watch live" in the gray box in the upper right corner.

That will bring you to Calvin's broadcast page: http://www.calvin.edu/sports/live/

There will be a link for "watch" and "listen" next to tonight's game.

[wiz]

What happened to the plans for Calvin to webcast video of the bball games?  I only see on Calvin's website links for the live stats scoreboard and audio broadcast for tonight's Calvin vs. Albion game at VNA but nothing about a video feed.  Anybody have info?

http://www.calvin.edu/sports/


then lick on "listen and watch live" in the gray box in the upper right corner.

That will bring you to Calvin's broadcast page: http://www.calvin.edu/sports/live/

There will be a link for "watch" and "listen" next to tonight's game.

If you want to practice, try it right now and you'll see the Calvin women playing against Olivet.  Quality is very, very good.  Both the broadcast and the baskteball play.

[Knightmare]

Standout:  When it says, "Stretch Internet Audio Broadcast"  it has always been to the video link.  Matter of terminology.

Thanks realist!  Never bothered clicking on it when it said "audio" figuring that was just the old WFUR radio broadcast only.  Tested on the women's game and works great.  Interesting camera angle, seems like it is almost positioned up in the catwalks giving an overhead camera angle view.  Nice how they periodically flash to the scoreboard for snapshot updates of scoring and fouls etc., a very nice touch.

Have to believe that everyone else in the league will be rooting for Albion tonight to try to keep Calvin with the rest of the pack.  Go Calvin!

[sac]

Hope 79 Adrian 63

Hope used a 21-4 first half run to take charge of this one and hang on for the victory, Adrian was able to get as close as 9 a couple times.  Logan Neil with a huge afternoon at one point 4-4 from treys.  Ty Tanis also came off the bench for his most significant action this year and scored 8 points.  (Jared Mysliwiec did not play today)

Big difference in 3 point shooting, Hope was 7-11 its best performance in weeks, Adrian 3-11 with 2 of those coming very late in the contest.

Hope:  Bunn 15, Neil 14, Venema 13, Snuggerud 10

Adrian: Mosley 19, Barnes 11, Wayne 10

[sac]

Trine 71 Kalamazoo 63

Trine:  Weir 16, Harris 13, Rogers 12

Kzoo:  Prepolec 19, Clark 13, Fishman 10