MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Right but these intagible efforts probably only explain somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.080 to 0.150 of the 0.332 difference in the percentages.

My point is that the actual difference in the defense probably (definitely) isn't as big as the numbers make it look.

Just comparing the first Hope v Calvin game to the second, and having experienced both from a first-person perspective, it is not wrong to say that Hope's defense was a major factor in its absence (first 3 halves) and its presence (4th half).  Not all outcomes can be explained away with statistics, I'm sorry.  To say that one game's outcome was due to a "simple regression to a mean" as you put it.  Ask any of the coaches or players and I bet they would not point to a simple regression to the mean as the main difference in these two games.

Sports are not driven by statistics alone.  Unless I'm misinterpreting the intent of your posts, you seem to be missing the point of the contest.  I will put forth my efforts against yours and we will see who comes out the victor.  The statistics that come out of that are the product, not the engine.  They are fluid, changing with every contest.  After enough contests you might be more able to recognize which of us is overall better than the other, but we will still compete again because the outcome the next time around is still uncertain.  Statistics point to general truths and help us understand them, but they do not completely define them.  Why is one team often considered better than the other?  Because their stats would indicate so.  But when the statistical underdog emerges as the victor, we see there is more to the contest than numbers.  You have to actually make the effort.

+k from me for an awesome, well articulated post.  Amen brother

[ziggy]

Here are some of my keys based on the first meeting:

Things will go better than last time for Hope if:
- Krombeen stays out of foul trouble
- they make more three pointers than Calvin
- Calvin's rebounding advantage is seven or fewer
- their scoring runs do more than turn a double digit deficit into a two-point game (I'm not being as flippant about this as it may come across over the interwebs)

Things will go well for Calvin if:
- Bowser has exited the zone and the basket is no longer in the ocean (did anyone follow up that quote by asking what the hoop's location has to do with his ability to make a shot?)
- they can make it rain on them hopes from beyond the arc
- the Knights make more free throws than Hope attempts
- the number of assists exceeds the number of turnovers

Time to revisit the four keys I presented prior to Saturday's game:

Hope's Keys:
-Check
-Nope, but Hope did make 8 to Calvin's 9
-Check, Calvin was only +2 on the boards
-Check, Hope had a massive run to go from double digits down at the break to up 8

Calvin's Keys:
-half a check, Bowser shot less than 50% from the field but went 4-5 from three and made his FTs.
-half a check, Good in first half, bad in second half
-Nope, Hope ended up making more FTs than Calvin attempted.
-Nope, 16 Assits vs. 17 TOs

[Knightmare]

Right but these intagible efforts probably only explain somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.080 to 0.150 of the 0.332 difference in the percentages.

My point is that the actual difference in the defense probably (definitely) isn't as big as the numbers make it look.

Just comparing the first Hope v Calvin game to the second, and having experienced both from a first-person perspective, it is not wrong to say that Hope's defense was a major factor in its absence (first 3 halves) and its presence (4th half).  Not all outcomes can be explained away with statistics, I'm sorry.  To say that one game's outcome was due to a "simple regression to a mean" as you put it.  Ask any of the coaches or players and I bet they would not point to a simple regression to the mean as the main difference in these two games.

Sports are not driven by statistics alone.  Unless I'm misinterpreting the intent of your posts, you seem to be missing the point of the contest.  I will put forth my efforts against yours and we will see who comes out the victor.  The statistics that come out of that are the product, not the engine.  They are fluid, changing with every contest.  After enough contests you might be more able to recognize which of us is overall better than the other, but we will still compete again because the outcome the next time around is still uncertain.  Statistics point to general truths and help us understand them, but they do not completely define them.  Why is one team often considered better than the other?  Because their stats would indicate so.  But when the statistical underdog emerges as the victor, we see there is more to the contest than numbers.  You have to actually make the effort.

Very nicely presented and excellent points (all of which I happen to agree with).

I'd give you +k but I've not been trusted with that level of responsibility yet.  I will get to superhero status someday and when I do I won't forget that "with great power comes great responsibility"   

[section7]

Congrats to the Flying Dutchment for a "HUGE" victory on Saturday.

As I have been watching this team this season and especially the past 4 games, the thought has come into my mind, "How would this team be performing and what would be their record/results if GVW was still the coach?"

I will admit I was a big supporter of Matt Neil getting the job and have been pleased and happy for him for this year's success.  

But with that said, I wonder what other posters think with maybe a "less" bias opinion.

Thoughts?

[almcguirejr]

Bowser and Prepolec are MIAA players of the week.

[sac]

Were Salo and Powell were exposed as being poor defenders in a half court set off the ball? Were the screens outstanding, and if so, who was setting them because it wasn't a change in plays, just player(s).  Maybe Calvin simply didn't think david would knock those shots down because help defenders ( the person guarding the screener) didn't assist (hedge or switch) in helping out either.

FWIW- I really liked the lineup the last 10 minutes, last 5 especially.  I really like Bowser defending the post player.  Other than Holwerda, he is the "longest"  and definitely the most athletic option (no disrespect to Dickerson and Snuggs).  Krombeen, Overway, Tanis, Neil and Bowser is something to look out for the 2nd time through the league.  Logan can guard the post as well. Remember he guarded Mantel in crunch time last year.

ie screens........I might have to go back and look a 3rd time, but I think it was Snuggerud setting the screens and what he really did was make himself wide forcing the Calvin defenders to take the long way around him, giving Krombeen ample time to set himself and release.  There was also other traffic and movement that cleared the space, and on a couple of occasions Calvin defenders ran into each other to help the play along perhaps communication was a problem because on one screen the defender had plenty of time to see it coming.   Its worth a look if you have the tape.

They weren't awesome screens, but the were solid and did the job they were designed to do.



ie small lineup (Overway, Krombeen, Tanis, Bowser, Neil)........I like the lineup for defense, but offensively they were poor, 1 FG in the time the were on the floor, and a couple times the best shot they could generate was a wild looking layup.  Its a lineup that needs work.  The biggest plus on offense seems to be the FT shooting, Hope's been very good at making FT's at the end of games.

When this lineup was on the floor it was Neil primarily guarding Schuster, with Bowser picking up Snikkers I think, Bowser did get Schuster once in the last 3.  Mysteriously Calvin did no posting up except with Snikkers.

[sac]

Congrats to the Flying Dutchment for a "HUGE" victory on Saturday.

As I have been watching this team this season and especially the past 4 games, the thought has come into my mind, "How would this team be performing and what would be their record/results if GVW was still the coach?"

I will admit I was a big supporter of Matt Neil getting the job and have been pleased and happy for him for this year's success.  

But with that said, I wonder what other posters think with maybe a "less" bias opinion.

Thoughts?

pointless to speculate, just enjoy this years team.

[KnightSlappy]

Right but these intagible efforts probably only explain somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.080 to 0.150 of the 0.332 difference in the percentages.

My point is that the actual difference in the defense probably (definitely) isn't as big as the numbers make it look.

Just comparing the first Hope v Calvin game to the second, and having experienced both from a first-person perspective, it is not wrong to say that Hope's defense was a major factor in its absence (first 3 halves) and its presence (4th half).  Not all outcomes can be explained away with statistics, I'm sorry.  To say that one game's outcome was due to a "simple regression to a mean" as you put it.  Ask any of the coaches or players and I bet they would not point to a simple regression to the mean as the main difference in these two games.

Sports are not driven by statistics alone.  Unless I'm misinterpreting the intent of your posts, you seem to be missing the point of the contest.  I will put forth my efforts against yours and we will see who comes out the victor.  The statistics that come out of that are the product, not the engine.  They are fluid, changing with every contest.  After enough contests you might be more able to recognize which of us is overall better than the other, but we will still compete again because the outcome the next time around is still uncertain.  Statistics point to general truths and help us understand them, but they do not completely define them.  Why is one team often considered better than the other?  Because their stats would indicate so.  But when the statistical underdog emerges as the victor, we see there is more to the contest than numbers.  You have to actually make the effort.

You're missing my point.

I'm saying that you can't say:

-- Hope's giving up 61.5% on three pointers in the first half. This is their defensive effort/abilities in that half.

-- Hope's giving up only 28.3% on three pointers in the second half. This is their defensive effort/abilities in that half.

-- Their increased effort is causing all of the 33.2% difference.

These are all not true. Or, at least, you couldn't conclusively say it is given the data size.

The observed difference in percentage is not explained entirely by a difference in effort. The difference in effort explains some of the difference in the numbers, but as I said, it's probably less than half of the difference.

The other half (or more) is probably due to the fact that the other team simply missed more shots in that half (shot closer to their collective season averages). Or you could say that Hope has been getting a bit "unlucky" in the first half.

[section7]

Congrats to the Flying Dutchment for a "HUGE" victory on Saturday.

As I have been watching this team this season and especially the past 4 games, the thought has come into my mind, "How would this team be performing and what would be their record/results if GVW was still the coach?"

I will admit I was a big supporter of Matt Neil getting the job and have been pleased and happy for him for this year's success.  

But with that said, I wonder what other posters think with maybe a "less" bias opinion.

Thoughts?

pointless to speculate, just enjoy this years team.

Thanks sac, appreciate your post.  As always I value your opinion!

[KnightSlappy]

Maybe to put another way, I'm suggesting that Hope's efforts on the defensive end would lend better to expected three point percentages of (not really my thoughts, but just examples):

1st half: 0.450
2nd half: 0.300

That is to say 0.150 is actual talent/effort, and the remaining 0.180 is noise in the data.

[sac]

Maybe to put another way, I'm suggesting that Hope's efforts on the defensive end would lend better to expected three point percentages of (not really my thoughts, but just examples):

1st half: 0.450
2nd half: 0.300

That is to say 0.150 is actual talent/effort, and the remaining 0.180 is noise in the data.

My eyes tell me Hope's defensive efforts in the 2nd half have been better in every MIAA game I've seen but one.

[section7]

Maybe to put another way, I'm suggesting that Hope's efforts on the defensive end would lend better to expected three point percentages of (not really my thoughts, but just examples):

1st half: 0.450
2nd half: 0.300

That is to say 0.150 is actual talent/effort, and the remaining 0.180 is noise in the data.

My eyes tell me Hope's defensive efforts in the 2nd half have been better in every MIAA game I've seen but one.

Sac, how many games have you actually attended this year?

[Erm Schmigget]

Maybe to put another way, I'm suggesting that Hope's efforts on the defensive end would lend better to expected three point percentages of (not really my thoughts, but just examples):

1st half: 0.450
2nd half: 0.300

That is to say 0.150 is actual talent/effort, and the remaining 0.180 is noise in the data.

My eyes tell me Hope's defensive efforts in the 2nd half have been better in every MIAA game I've seen but one.

Sac, how many games have you actually attended this year?

I've been to 3 in Grand Rapids, 2 in Orlando, and several in Holland.  I will agree with sac.

[northb]

Right but these intagible efforts probably only explain somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.080 to 0.150 of the 0.332 difference in the percentages.

My point is that the actual difference in the defense probably (definitely) isn't as big as the numbers make it look.

Just comparing the first Hope v Calvin game to the second, and having experienced both from a first-person perspective, it is not wrong to say that Hope's defense was a major factor in its absence (first 3 halves) and its presence (4th half).  Not all outcomes can be explained away with statistics, I'm sorry.  To say that one game's outcome was due to a "simple regression to a mean" as you put it.  Ask any of the coaches or players and I bet they would not point to a simple regression to the mean as the main difference in these two games.

Sports are not driven by statistics alone.  Unless I'm misinterpreting the intent of your posts, you seem to be missing the point of the contest.  I will put forth my efforts against yours and we will see who comes out the victor.  The statistics that come out of that are the product, not the engine.  They are fluid, changing with every contest.  After enough contests you might be more able to recognize which of us is overall better than the other, but we will still compete again because the outcome the next time around is still uncertain.  Statistics point to general truths and help us understand them, but they do not completely define them.  Why is one team often considered better than the other?  Because their stats would indicate so.  But when the statistical underdog emerges as the victor, we see there is more to the contest than numbers.  You have to actually make the effort.

Very nicely presented and excellent points (all of which I happen to agree with).

I'd give you +k but I've not been trusted with that level of responsibility yet.  I will get to superhero status someday and when I do I won't forget that "with great power comes great responsibility"   

Soon, my young Padawan, soon

[sac]

Maybe to put another way, I'm suggesting that Hope's efforts on the defensive end would lend better to expected three point percentages of (not really my thoughts, but just examples):

1st half: 0.450
2nd half: 0.300

That is to say 0.150 is actual talent/effort, and the remaining 0.180 is noise in the data.

My eyes tell me Hope's defensive efforts in the 2nd half have been better in every MIAA game I've seen but one.

Sac, how many games have you actually attended this year?

I was at Davenport
I was at the Purdue North Central game
I was at the Calvin game in Holland
I was at the Olivet game
I was at the Albion game
I was at the Calvin game

I believe I amply qualified this statement "Hope's defensive efforts in the 2nd half have been better in every MIAA game I've seen but one.", that would mean I was referring to the 4 MIAA games I was able to attend.  I stand by the statment that Hope's defensive 2nd half effort was better in the fashion I stated it originally.

.......and I would say that statistics from boxscores/ and play-by-play from games have pointed to Hope being better in the 2nd half defensively in numerous other games I wasn't able to attend.