Offensive Woes?

[CCHS82]

Our defensive shortcomings have been well documented. Not much disagreement in that subject matter. However, there appears to be quite a difference in opinion as to how good our offense is or isn't. My good friend Harve74 and I have had this discussion a few times.

I have heard how we have one of the highest "offensive efficiency" numbers in the country. This may be true. I'd like to know what numerators and denominators go into that equation. Can someone pass them along? Thanks in advance.

I am a numbers guy but this belief that we are a good offensive team just doesn't pass my "eye test" or my "gut test". As Zeise points out, there have been far too many times where this PITT team has gone on LONG scoring droughts. Some say that it is no worse than what other teams have experienced. Of course, the examples that Zeise points out are mostly late in games. Maybe there is some hidden "choke" factor coming into play here. Just curious, is there a stat out there that is kept that keeps track of scoring droughts longer than say 4 or 5 minutes in NCAA BB?



This post was edited on 3/19 5:07 AM by CCHS82

PG Article on Offense

 

[Jeffburgh]

Are you good at sex

if you can pull it off in under a minute, but only manage to do it once a year?

This is NOT a good offensive team, not even close.

A "good" offense is more well rounded, and can dictate the action in a game.

This offense has two forwards who can shoot mid range shots, and one guy off the bench who can hit some shots if he happens to be hot that game.

That is what this offense is.

Young can sometimes provide some post offense, but outside of that, there is no one who can get baskets in the paint. They have no guards who can break a defense down and drive to score, and no one who can go off dribble for a pull up jumper, outside of Wright in certain areas of the court.

The big hope is DJ and or Cam, but they are the same kinds of guys, spot up shooters. DJ showed the athleticism to score going to the basket in transition at times, but where he was at last year he was not a guy who can take someone off the dribble to score.

 

[thebadby2]

Re: Are you good at sex

Every team needs multiple players who can create their own shots off the dribble, and who can use the dribble to get into the high percentage area. These players are all at the 1-3, the scoring positions. We have one such player, at most, and he's at the 4 for us.

Not good.

A point guard doesn't have to be a "scorer" per say, but he has to be able to score--there's a difference. Out PG can't hit wide open shots consistently if left alone and virtually never probes the defense beyond the perimeter. Other teams don't have to break a sweat guarding him. It's 4 on 5 when we have the ball.

Not good.

Watching these little programs like Robert Morris and Dayton, they all have multiple guards with a lot of quickness and handle. They may not be the world's most talented players, and they may not be ideal size, but they have jets and handle the ball like it's on a string. They can get themselves into the soft spots against any defense and create offense for themselves and others. Am I saying they're better than us or our players? No, but they have some advantages.

We play so slow--not just in terms of using the shot clock, but in terms of how our players move with and without the ball--very mechanical, very forced. It's maddening at times.

 

[JRPITT]

POINTS IN THE PAINT!!! (1) Right now we don't have guards consistent enough to drive, draw, and dish to the post. Maybe that will come next season with current players improving or with new recruits or won't come at all.
(2) We don't have a player outside of Michael Young who can score with their back to the basket. And Mike struggles somewhat against bigger, thicker players. I think this season has taken its toll on Young in the post. He needs help.
Maybe that will also come next year with current players improving or new recruits or won's come at all.
Anyway, the best teams have multiple ways to score (fast break, secondary break, outside shooting, dribble-drive, and post play). Look at Arizona for best example.

 

[Plan B&C Recruits]

I agree with you on all points. It got me thinking how in the hell did Jamie win 19 games with a team like we have? I think this is proof he can coach, maybe 2016 will reaffirm my belief that he can still recruit. Until then we are what we are, and that aint much.

 

[levance2]

Here's a simple explanation of offensive efficiency. Tell me which offense is "best":

Four offensive possession results:
2-4, 50% FG, 0 TO, 0 OReb2-2, 100% FG, 2 TO, 0 OReb2-6, 33% FG, 0 TO, 2 OReb2-4, 50% FG, 2 TO, 2 OReb1-2, 50% FG, 2 TO, 1 Oreb, 2 FTM0-2, 0% FG, 0 TO, 0 OReb, 4 FTM
That's a wide range of FG% in the same number of possessions, all ending with the exact same number of points on the board. Offensive efficiency is the number of points you score divided by possessions. In every scenario above, the offensive efficiencies are identical. You scored 4 points in 4 tries. It doesn't care how you did it.

Limiting turnovers and maximizing offensive rebounding means you are getting more shots per possession, which you would hope would lead to more points. If you are good at that on the offensive end, and anywhere near good on the defensive end, eventually you'd be in position to win.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by CCHS82:

Our defensive shortcomings have been well documented. Not much disagreement in that subject matter. However, there appears to be quite a difference in opinion as to how good our offense is or isn't. My good friend Harve74 and I have had this discussion a few times.

I have heard how we have one of the highest "offensive efficiency" numbers in the country. This may be true. I'd like to know what numerators and denominators go into that equation. Can someone pass them along? Thanks in advance.

I am a numbers guy but this belief that we are a good offensive team just doesn't pass my "eye test" or my "gut test". As Zeise points out, there have been far too many times where this PITT team has gone on LONG scoring droughts. Some say that it is no worse than what other teams have experienced. Of course, the examples that Zeise points out are mostly late in games. Maybe there is some hidden "choke" factor coming into play here. Just curious, is there a stat out there that is kept that keeps track of scoring droughts longer than say 4 or 5 minutes in NCAA BB?



This post was edited on 3/19 5:07 AM by CCHS82

Yea, its kind of weird, you hear some people on this board say this is one of the best offenses under Dixon and point to offensive efficiency numbers. Then, people like me think the offense is dreadfully bad and point to the eye test.

I just know what I see.

I see a team that is heavily reliant on the worst shot in basketball, the mid-range jump shot. We don't fast break, we can't make 3's, we don't have a guard that can get his own shot or that can create easy shots (you know like layups and dunks) for others. And we don't offensive rebound.

I still think this offense is really bad, the worst under Dixon but the efficiency numbers say its fantastic so there's that.

 

[NCanton Panther]

It may be debatable but I think the claim could be made that this year's team may have easily been the best 'mid-range' jump shooting team Pitt has had in a long while. I don't think shooting mid-range jumpers is as bad of an option or choice as you state if you are good at them, but a good offense has to be more well-rounded and be able to do other things, whether that be setting up and scoring in the post, dribble drive, making 3's, offensive rebounding, etc et. We were unfortunately heavily reliant on the mid-range jumper because we didn't come anywhere close to exceling in any of these other facets.

 

[levance2]

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Yea, its kind of weird, you hear some people on this board say this is one of the best offenses under Dixon and point to offensive efficiency numbers. Then, people like me think the offense is dreadfully bad and point to the eye test.

Again, you are just making sh!t up. Nobody has claimed this is "one of the best offenses under Dixon". People have stated that an offense in the top-30 nationally is good enough to make the NCAAs. For Jamie Dixon, this is the 3rd-worst offense in his tenure, because Dixon has had well above-average offenses.

It is pretty easy to make the NCAAs with the #34 offense. It is really hard to make the NCAAs with the #207 defense. That's all.

San Diego State has an offense ranked #169 and a defense of #4. Indiana has an offense ranked #9 and a defense of #217.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

This post was edited on 3/19 10:08 AM by levance2

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by CCHS82:

I have heard how we have one of the highest "offensive efficiency" numbers in the country.

This is BS, to think that because of this "number", this "equation", that you can call this a good offensive team,

!

Anybody with a brain would trust their own "eye test" over the answer to this algebra problem!

They can't shoot 3s (but lead the nation in LONG 2s-suggesting no thought to positioning?) , aren't great at FTs, rarely get easy layups or penetrate, score mostly mid range jumpers and don't have anybody who's offensively skilled to consistantly create a basket on his own. NO, HELL NO! The offense can't be called good, No matter what the math problem suggests.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Originally posted by CCHS82:

Our defensive shortcomings have been well documented. Not much disagreement in that subject matter. However, there appears to be quite a difference in opinion as to how good our offense is or isn't. My good friend Harve74 and I have had this discussion a few times.

I have heard how we have one of the highest "offensive efficiency" numbers in the country. This may be true. I'd like to know what numerators and denominators go into that equation. Can someone pass them along? Thanks in advance.

I am a numbers guy but this belief that we are a good offensive team just doesn't pass my "eye test" or my "gut test". As Zeise points out, there have been far too many times where this PITT team has gone on LONG scoring droughts. Some say that it is no worse than what other teams have experienced. Of course, the examples that Zeise points out are mostly late in games. Maybe there is some hidden "choke" factor coming into play here. Just curious, is there a stat out there that is kept that keeps track of scoring droughts longer than say 4 or 5 minutes in NCAA BB?




This post was edited on 3/19 5:07 AM by CCHS82

Yea, its kind of weird, you hear some people on this board say this is one of the best offenses under Dixon and point to offensive efficiency numbers. Then, people like me think the offense is dreadfully bad and point to the eye test.

I just know what I see.

I see a team that is heavily reliant on the worst shot in basketball, the mid-range jump shot. We don't fast break, we can't make 3's, we don't have a guard that can get his own shot or that can create easy shots (you know like layups and dunks) for others. And we don't offensive rebound.

I still think this offense is really bad, the worst under Dixon but the efficiency numbers say its fantastic so there's that.

Wow! This exactly what I've been saying all year! This must be IDIOCY then?

 

[Harve74]

Offensive Efficiency

I don't know exactly what goes into the "adjusted" part of AdjO, adjusted offensive efficiency, but the basic calculation is fairly simple. It is Points divided by Possessions. Pomeroy makes a calculation to adjust for an "average" D-1 defense but that is beyond anyone here but ThirteenNINE. He also multiplies by 100 so his number is points per 100 possessions.

In the last 10 years, our WORST ranking was 45th, in the CBI season. He carries his calculations thru until the championship so our ranking will continue to move. Before the GW game we were 24th but we dropped to 32 because we were SO uncharacteristically bad that night offensively.

Possessions could be counted by watching video but by convention, are calculated by the following formula: (fg attempts, plus turnovers, minus offensive rebounds, plus 0.4 times free throw attempts. ) or FGA+TO-ORB+(0.4×FTA). Some different calculations use 0.44, 0.45 or .475 as the factor to multiply FTA. Pomeroy uses .475, according to articles I found. The factor comes from the mix of two shot fouls and one and ones, including missing the front end of the one and one.

As a fan, I can feel the impact of our scoring droughts, but I suspect that fans of every team think THEIR team is unusually bad at that, too. Most games feature "runs" by one team or the other and frequently both at some time during the game. GW had a 4 minute run without a basket early in the 2nd half and scored only one basket between 12:27 and 0:43 down the stretch.

Scoring droughts are real, but everyone has them. Our porous defense this year exaggerated ours but like FT shooting, we're always convinced we're the worst. FT numbers show we're in the middle of the pack. If anyone kept scoring drought numbers, we'd probably be similar.

I suspect our late game woes this season are more related to lack of confidence and the inability to get the ball into the paint. JRob doesn't attempt risky passes, Mike Young often doesn't present himself and ask for the ball in crunch time and we don't really have a slashing penetrator on the roster. We too often end up with JRob or Cam Wright trying to show leadership and taking long jumpers.

Statistics measure what happens over the course of a game and a season. These particular numbers don't pretend to track what happens at crunch time. There are statistics packages out there that do but I don't begin to understand them.

We can argue whether AdjO and AdjD are the best measurements but we can't argue that they are meaningful and in wide use. Tempo and pace vary widely in college and stats per possession were developed as a simple way to evaluate teams. Vegas makes a lot of money using these and other more detailed advanced stats to set betting lines.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by levance2:

... For Jamie Dixon, this is the 3rd-worst offense in his tenure, because Dixon has had well above-average offenses.

That's only if you believe that "above average offenses" = a good offensive efficiancy stat without looking at anything else, Like the factors, I and others have mentioned above. Some of you just rely on this "number" and don't understand what you are watching.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by NCanton Panther:
It may be debatable but I think the claim could be made that this year's team may have easily been the best 'mid-range' jump shooting team Pitt has had in a long while. I don't think shooting mid-range jumpers is as bad of an option or choice as you state if you are good at them, but a good offense has to be more well-rounded and be able to do other things, whether that be setting up and scoring in the post, dribble drive, making 3's, offensive rebounding, etc et. We were unfortunately heavily reliant on the mid-range jumper because we didn't come anywhere close to exceling in any of these other facets.

I agree that this is the best mid-range shooting team we've ever had, mostly because very few college basketball teams (including old Pitt teams) utilize the mid-range jump shot as a big part of their offense. College hoops is 3's and dunks, 2 areas we suck at. So, while we do have a good mid-range jump shooting team, that's not necessarily a good thing because in our case, it means we can't make 3's and we can't get layups and dunks. Luckily we do shoot the mid-range shot well which enable us to get more wins than we should have. But from an analytics standpoint, the mid-range shot is the worst you can take.

 

[Pitt79]

Maybe some of you self proclaimed SMART PEOPLE, can explain why some of these guys score so many "LONG 2s" literally a foot to inches within the 3 point line? Do they not think at all about where their feet are? VERY OFTEN, they are wide open, perfect look, literally inches inside the arc. The announcers say it every game, multiple times "LONG 2 by Pitt!" We're leaving points on the floor by not being mindfull of where we are.

 

[levance2]

Re: Offensive Efficiency

Originally posted by Harve74:
I don't know exactly what goes into the "adjusted" part of AdjO, adjusted offensive efficiency, but the basic calculation is fairly simple. It is Points divided by Possessions. Pomeroy makes a calculation to adjust for an "average" D-1 defense but that is beyond anyone here but ThirteenNINE.

I'm not sure how it is calculated mathematically, but having a higher offensive efficiency against a good defensive team reflects better and vice versa. If you look at the raw ACC results, every team but two allowed >100 in conference. Generally, 100 is the sign of a poor defense, but the ACC is a good league with 6 of the top 25 offenses. Those same ratings in the ASun would be way worse "adjusted" for level of competition.

 

[DT_PITT]

Harve ... within your post ... you make the most important point ...

As a fan, I can feel the impact of our scoring droughts, but I suspect that fans of every team think THEIR team is unusually bad at that, too. Most games feature "runs" by one team or the other and frequently both at some time during the game. GW had a 4 minute run without a basket early in the 2nd half and scored only one basket between 12:27 and 0:43 down the stretch.

Scoring droughts are real, but everyone has them. Our porous defense this year exaggerated ours but like FT shooting, we're always convinced we're the worst. FT numbers show we're in the middle of the pack. If anyone kept scoring drought numbers, we'd probably be similar.

These offensive efficiency numbers DO NOT LIE. They are completely accurate. People need to understand this.

But that doesn't mean that we don't have scoring droughts, or times when it's tough for us to score. So people's "eye test" isn't inaccurate either, per se.

THIS HAPPENS TO ALL TEAMS!

What offensive efficiency also helps to measure is (on an apple to apple basis) your offense against other offenses who also have scoring droughts and times when they have trouble scoring.

And this isn't about skill or shooting or talent or ability to penetrate. There are plenty of teams with more of those things than we have who can't score as efficiently as we do.

The problem that often applies is that fans completely lack perspective. They can only view how their team does through their own values. And we WANT our team to score every time, so there is a stronger feeling when we don't score, and is more memorable.

On the flip side, we DON'T want other teams to score so there is only a stronger feeling when the do score.

Efficiency numbers eliminate the "feelings" from the equation.

Also -- I didn't read his article, but I know that Paul Ziese hates defense and slow offensive possession in basketball. He's hated it as long as I can remember reading his stuff (12 years?). Paul likes points, and games played in the 80's. With this bias, he cannot be considered completely objective in his reviews of Pitt Hoops. (This isn't to say that he's "wrong" or less that very informed. -- But he does have a noticeable basis.)

 

[Harve74]

Arguing against mathematics is like arguing with gravity.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by Harve74:
Arguing against mathematics is like arguing with gravity.

Sports aren't all mathematics and science, sports are also art and poetry that can't be measured by numbers.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Originally posted by Pitt79:

Originally posted by Harve74:
Arguing against mathematics is like arguing with gravity.

Sports aren't all mathematics and science, sports are also art and poetry that can't be measured by numbers.

no it really isn't.

You don't win by math alone...but the art and poetry are METHODS which use the math to achieve a goal..and the math can explain what it is.

Your eye test, as is most EVERYBODY else's prone to bias and flaws. Facts aren't.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by SoufOaklin4Life:

Originally posted by Pitt79:

Originally posted by Harve74:
Arguing against mathematics is like arguing with gravity.

Sports aren't all mathematics and science, sports are also art and poetry that can't be measured by numbers.

no it really isn't.

You don't win by math alone...but the art and poetry are METHODS which use the math to achieve a goal..and the math can explain what it is.

Your eye test, as is most EVERYBODY else's prone to bias and flaws. Facts aren't.

I don't agree and stats alone don't prove me wrong or the #1 team in stats would be champion every year. Kentucky's #11 in offensive efficiency right now, call me when #1 Notre Dame wins the title.

 

[mvk112]

If Pitt was anywhere close to as good on defense as they are on offense, they'd have easily been a tournament team.

Here is a list of teams that are top 40 in both -

Kentucky, Arizona, Wisconsin, Virginia, Villanova, Gonzaga, Utah, Kansas, Northern Iowa, Wichita State, Baylor, Georgetown, Ohio State, Iowa.

Of the top 40 offensive teams, 9 teams are not playing in the NCAA.

BYU (11 offense, 156 defense) (knocked out in Dayton)
Murray State (18 offense, 194 defense)
Vanderbilt (23 offense, 99 defense)
Central Michigan (24 offense, 237 defense)
William & Mary (28 offense, 301 defense)
Northwestern State (29 offense, 348 defense)
Stanford (31 offense, 104 defense)
Pittsburgh (34 offense, 207 defense)
Toledo (37 offense, 212 defense)

Seems to be pretty clear cut why those good offensive teams weren't good enough to be still playing in the NCAA.

There were only 2 teams in the country that had a top 50 offense and a top 100 defense that missed the tournament (Vanderbilt and Alabama). There were 3 teams that had a top 50 defense and a top 100 offense that missed the tournament (Texas A&M, Richmond, TCU). If Pitt had been good a bit better on defense (good enough to improve from 207 into the 90's or so), they'd probably have been good enough to beat Hawaii, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, and Miami. They'd have been in the tournament then.

 

[DT_PITT]

Originally posted by Pitt79:

I don't agree and stats alone don't prove me wrong or the #1 team in stats would be champion every year. Kentucky's #11 in offensive efficiency right now, call me when #1 Notre Dame wins the title.

But this isn't what the stats say. The stats measure performance over time, and can indicate probabilities for things to occur. But they would never pretend to indicate anything certain.

This is especially true in a one and done format.

If the #1 team in College Basketball played several best of five series, they would be more likely to win.

And if two teams played 200 games against each other, one would find that the actual results would almost fall directly along the averages.

Nonetheless, where the "art" comes in, are locating the factors that can create exceptions to the norms.

 

[mvk112]

Originally posted by Pitt79:

I don't agree and stats alone don't prove me wrong or the #1 team in stats would be champion every year. Kentucky's #11 in offensive efficiency right now, call me when #1 Notre Dame wins the title.

There is a lot more to the game that just offense.

According to Pomeroy, Kentucky is #5 offense, but #2 defense, the best combination in the country.

Notre Dame is #2 offense, but #111 defense. They aren't coming close to winning the title.

Kentucky and Arizona (#10 offense/#3 defense) are the only ones in the top 10 in both.

Wisconsin is #1 offense, #31 defense.
Virginia is #25 offense, #1 defense.
Duke is #3 offense, #58 defense.
Villanova is #4 offense, #12 defense.
Gonzaga is #7 offense, #27 defense.
Kansas is #37 offense, #7 defense.

Those are the top 8 seeds (plus Notre Dame).

You have to been really good at both, as Pitt was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2009, and 2011. You'll notice that Notre Dame and Duke had the #2 & #3 offenses in the country, but were looking up at the #1 defense in the country in the ACC. Kentucky is by far the best team, and the #2 defense goes a long way to show why.

 

[Harve74]

I don't agree and stats alone don't prove me wrong or the #1 team in stats would be champion every year. Kentucky's #11 in offensive efficiency right now, call me when #1 Notre Dame wins the title.

Actually, Kentucky is #5 in Pomeroy's AdjO and #2 in AdjD, so the math says they should finish ahead of Notre Dame, which is #2 in AdjO and #111 in AdjD.

You are the one who claims scoring is the important stat.

Stats have proven most of your eye test-based opinions are wrong.

Basketball is not scored on a subjective basis. It's not Figure Skating. The "Eastern European judge's" opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Crimmins27]

Gotta love the "eye test"

Of course, the eye of a fan is attached to a brain that does not discern or reason but rather filters everything through an emotional prism,

These eyes usually do not see how often Kentucky has struggled to score and that VA had a total of 2 points after 12 minutes against SYr, or that Louisville had 13 points at the half in a game this year.

As I believe HArve said, it is biased and usually pointless .... And often clueless.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by Harve74:

I don't agree and stats alone don't prove me wrong or the #1 team in stats would be champion every year. Kentucky's #11 in offensive efficiency right now, call me when #1 Notre Dame wins the title.

Actually, Kentucky is #5 in Pomeroy's AdjO and #2 in AdjD, so the math says they should finish ahead of Notre Dame, which is #2 in AdjO and #111 in AdjD.

You are the one who claims scoring is the important stat.

Stats have proven most of your eye test-based opinions are wrong.

Basketball is not scored on a subjective basis. It's not Figure Skating. The "Eastern European judge's" opinion doesn't matter.

Stats, haven't proven anything. If your stats are correct, ND should beat Kentucky right? Stats don't prove a damn thing. Which stats are the stats anyways? I just found THE STATS putting Kentucky at 11.

 

[KiwiJeff]

Originally posted by Harve74:

I don't agree and stats alone don't prove me wrong or the #1 team in stats would be champion every year. Kentucky's #11 in offensive efficiency right now, call me when #1 Notre Dame wins the title.

Actually, Kentucky is #5 in Pomeroy's AdjO and #2 in AdjD, so the math says they should finish ahead of Notre Dame, which is #2 in AdjO and #111 in AdjD.

You are the one who claims scoring is the important stat.

Stats have proven most of your eye test-based opinions are wrong.

Basketball is not scored on a subjective basis. It's not Figure Skating. The "Eastern European judge's" opinion doesn't matter.

That clown is too dull to realize he is disproving his own point....lol.

 

[Pitt79]

I'm done with this BS, nobody has disproven anything I've said! Eqarlier in the thread, a person who tells me I'm wrong, posted exactly, practically word for word what I have posted before, stating that Pitt is not a good offensive team for the same reasons I have stated all season, no use argueing, when I'm right and nobody has definitively proven that I'm not.

 

[UPitt129]

Pitt79, what on earth are you talking about??????

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by UPitt129:
Pitt79, what on earth are you talking about??????

Pitt is not a good offensive team no matter what "the stats" say, period. DONE!

 

[mvk112]

That's offensive stats, genius. There is more to the game than offense. Kentucky is #5 in offense (Pomeroy), while Notre Dame is #2 if offense (Pomeroy). That doesn't mean Notre Dame would win. Kentucky is #2 in defense (Pomeroy), while Notre Dame is #111 in defense (Pomeroy).

I really have no idea why you can't comprehend this. It's clear you don't know much about the game.

 

[GrowthHormone]

Originally posted by CCHS82:

I have heard how we have one of the highest "offensive efficiency" numbers in the country. This may be true. I'd like to know what numerators and denominators go into that equation. Can someone pass them along? Thanks in advance.

Numerator: points scored
Denominator: possessions

Points per possession. More advanced calculations adjust for strength of schedule. It's as simple as that. It is all encompassing. It is the Truth. Points per game: bad. Points per possession: good. This accounts for tempo in a way you never considered before.

Come, join the Church of KenPom. See link.

This post was edited on 3/19 1:33 PM by GrowthHormone

Kenpom.com

 

[Pittbaseball11]

This thread is absolutely incredible. Reminds me of my days on the Scout board when they'd try to discuss hedging.

 

[Pitt79]

Originally posted by mvk112:
That's offensive stats, genius. There is more to the game than offense. Kentucky is #5 in offense (Pomeroy), while Notre Dame is #2 if offense (Pomeroy). That doesn't mean Notre Dame would win. Kentucky is #2 in defense (Pomeroy), while Notre Dame is #111 in defense (Pomeroy).

I really have no idea why you can't comprehend this. It's clear you don't know much about the game.

What's Pomoroy?

Why isn't this one right? http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/offensive-efficiency/

Who decides?
are there more?

 

[DT_PITT]

Speaking of that ...

... why the HELL does Jamie play have his biggest defender out beyond the 3pt line? That's stupid!

Oh ... nevermind ...

 

[UPitt129]

Umm, I still see pitt at 61, which is still top 20 percent of d1 teams.
are you sue you are sober, because you are making literally no sense?
This post was edited on 3/19 1:32 PM by UPitt129

 

[DT_PITT]

Pitt79 ... that's just a list of offensive efficiency ... use this one

... you have to use offensive and defensive efficiency together.

Pomeroy's is adjusted for strength of opposition.

Pomeroy

 

[mvk112]

I would guess this guy would rather score 75 points on 80 possessions than 65 points on 60 possessions.



If Pitt played defense as they did this year (1.043 pts per possession), under the first scenario, they lose 83-75. Under the second scenario, they win 65-63. I know which one I'd rather have.

 

[DT_PITT]

I think what the stats probably should tell you ...


... is that while Pitt doesn't look all that good offensively to you, there are SO many teams who would look worse. Many many more teams than you would suspect.

That's really the point to all of these stats. Objective comparisons between teams.

This would also fit the trend of offense / scoring being down in college hoops.