Offensive Woes?
- Thread starter CCHS82
- Start date
Wisconsin/Green Bay went 24-9 and they are at #142? How did they have such a good record if this stat means so much? Pitt isn't the 61st best offense in the country. How does this stat account for, "10 seconds left, you need someone to create a basket right" or "down 15 with 4:00 left, we need 3s now"... how does this stat make you a good offense necessarilly?
If you used KenPom, you'd see that Green Bay was actually ranked 70th when Defense was taken into account.
Which would lead me to believe defense really matters, but after reading this thread now I'm not so sure.....
Green Bay #18 in the country in defensive efficiency, for those curious.
182nd in offensive efficiency.
182nd in offensive efficiency.
The discussion was supposed to be about whether the mathamatical stats that say Pitt is a good offensive team are valid.
I don't think Pitt is a good offensive team, I've stated why, others here have stated the same reason and also said the same things as I have without being abused for it, PITT IS NOT A GOOD OFFENSIVE TEAM. No stat can prove that they are.
I don't think Pitt is a good offensive team, I've stated why, others here have stated the same reason and also said the same things as I have without being abused for it, PITT IS NOT A GOOD OFFENSIVE TEAM. No stat can prove that they are.
The mathematical stats are valid. They are comprehensive, and all-encompassing. They penalize for missed shots, missed free throws, turnovers, etc., and they reward for made shots. There is, quite literally, no outcome on a given possession that is not accounted for.
This isn't like people using RBIs in baseball to say a guy is a good hitter. This is a comprehensive stat that actually tells you all you'd need to know in one neat, tidy number.
This isn't like people using RBIs in baseball to say a guy is a good hitter. This is a comprehensive stat that actually tells you all you'd need to know in one neat, tidy number.
How about if we say this ...
... compared to other teams, Pitt ranks #34 among the 351 college teams in their ability to put points on the board for every time the possess the basketball.
This may not seem or feel "good" to you. And when you watch Pitt, they may not look, seem or feel "good" on offense.
But we are "better" at offense than 313 other teams.
This post was edited on 3/19 1:55 PM by DT_PITT
... compared to other teams, Pitt ranks #34 among the 351 college teams in their ability to put points on the board for every time the possess the basketball.
This may not seem or feel "good" to you. And when you watch Pitt, they may not look, seem or feel "good" on offense.
But we are "better" at offense than 313 other teams.
This post was edited on 3/19 1:55 PM by DT_PITT
Pittbaseball11
I compare this to old school baseball fans that refuse to look at newer stats like WAR and all the SABR stats. Now granted, I don't think they are the end all be all, but they eliminate in a lot of ways the eye test.
However, offensive efficiency in basketball is pretty cut and dry. It doesn't lie.
I compare this to old school baseball fans that refuse to look at newer stats like WAR and all the SABR stats. Now granted, I don't think they are the end all be all, but they eliminate in a lot of ways the eye test.
However, offensive efficiency in basketball is pretty cut and dry. It doesn't lie.
And, even with WAR, the issue comes on defense. Something like wRC+ for offense is essentially the KenPom version of offensive efficiency. It accounts for every possible outcome and then it adjusts for park factors/league factors/era.
I don't trust WAR, but I think if you're evaluating a batter then you can't go wrong with wRC+ and can't go wrong with FIP or xFIP (depending on situation) for a pitcher.
I don't trust WAR, but I think if you're evaluating a batter then you can't go wrong with wRC+ and can't go wrong with FIP or xFIP (depending on situation) for a pitcher.
That's the difference. Baseball stats are really complex. WAR is a formula that is changed from time to time. The statistics that come out of a mathematical model are only as meaningful as the model is accurate. That would be analogous to defensive player ratings, +/-, or all sorts of other things. Those are unproven stats that are trying to dig up data that the human brain and human eye are really incapable of deducing on our own.
Basketball efficiencies are really nothing at all like advanced baseball stats. Efficiencies are about as simple as batting average. How many times do you score the ball out of how many times you get the ball. The team with the better efficiencies wins the game 100% OF THE TIME! It doesn't get any easier to understand than that. Someone refusing to understand that you need to score more points than your opponenent in the same number of possessions isn't refusing statistics, they are just refusing the basic concept of basketball.
The way I look at it, on the baseball side, is that those stats just give you more info to evaluate a player on. On offense I gather WAR is actually pretty solid, but is definitely lacking on defense. The more I see of FIP though the more stock I put in it.
The Pirates have been at the forfefront of using advanced metrics, especially when it comes to shifts. It obviously has had a major effect as they seem to have a knack of finding pitchers who were awful elsewhere and then have very good years here. Burnett, Liriano, and volquez all were hideous prior to their time in pittsburgh then pitched extremely well here.
The Pirates have been at the forfefront of using advanced metrics, especially when it comes to shifts. It obviously has had a major effect as they seem to have a knack of finding pitchers who were awful elsewhere and then have very good years here. Burnett, Liriano, and volquez all were hideous prior to their time in pittsburgh then pitched extremely well here.
I mean, given the presence of luck and human error, of course the best team doesn't always win. But I think in terms of pinpointing strengths, weaknesses, and issues that they're nearly infallible.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Butler made their huge runs when Brad Stevens was the first college coach to throw himself into analytics. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the BoSox started winning when they embraced the numbers, that the Pirates turned themselves around when they went into a full-on analytic strategy, and that the Miami Heat, Dallas Mavericks, and San Antonio Spurs have won pretty much all of the recent championships as heavily analytics based franchises.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Butler made their huge runs when Brad Stevens was the first college coach to throw himself into analytics. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the BoSox started winning when they embraced the numbers, that the Pirates turned themselves around when they went into a full-on analytic strategy, and that the Miami Heat, Dallas Mavericks, and San Antonio Spurs have won pretty much all of the recent championships as heavily analytics based franchises.
No I'm right, Pitt is not a good offensive team, do you think they are? Sure, this same Pitt offense could win more, if the defense was better, but they aren't good offensively, even if the stats say they are 61st in offense, there's a lot of intangibles where theey can't compete and in certain situations it would cost them.
I think it's also important to point out that the first rule of statistics (basically) is that small sample sizes tell you absolutely nothing.
So, the outcome of one game doesn't matter one iota.....it's what happens over many, many games. I hate when people point to a game or two or three and use them as some sort of significant population from which to draw a conclusion. They'll point to 2 or 3 games where the offense sucked and say "See, it's the offense!" when in 25 other games the defense and rebounding were horrid.
It's also why people don't believe that the winner of the National Tournament is necessarily the best team or a good way to judge teams and coaches.
It's fun. It makes a ton of money. But I'm still taking guys like Mark Few, Jamie Dixon, Tony Bennett, and (up until last year) Bo Ryan over a ton of coaches who have made Final Fours.
So, the outcome of one game doesn't matter one iota.....it's what happens over many, many games. I hate when people point to a game or two or three and use them as some sort of significant population from which to draw a conclusion. They'll point to 2 or 3 games where the offense sucked and say "See, it's the offense!" when in 25 other games the defense and rebounding were horrid.
It's also why people don't believe that the winner of the National Tournament is necessarily the best team or a good way to judge teams and coaches.
It's fun. It makes a ton of money. But I'm still taking guys like Mark Few, Jamie Dixon, Tony Bennett, and (up until last year) Bo Ryan over a ton of coaches who have made Final Fours.
I don't know why you guys bother. Nothing you will say can get Pitt79 to wrap his head around an astonishingly simple concept. He cannot look beyond his extremely narrow conception of good offense. nor is he willing to do so.
You are confusing two very different aspects of sports: execution and analysis.
Is man-to-man better than zone? Is shooting more 3FGA better for an offense? Should a coach try a 2-for-1 at the end of a period? Should you double-team a post player?
None of those answers is going to come from efficiency statistics. There might be potential in analyzing some of those questions and postulating an answer, but it isn't going to be an absolute conclusion.
Pitt is good at scoring efficiently. Could they be even better if they ran less time off the clock? Maybe. Could they be better if the took fewer mid-range jump shots? Maybe. Could they be better if their defense made more stops? Maybe.
None of those answers are black and white, and nobody here is claiming they are.
So we just disagree, doesn't make me totally wrong. I think they are missing skill sets on offense needed to go far and it shows in certain situations and against certain opponents that can exploit the lack of those skills. Others, in this thread have pointed out the exact skill sets I've pointed out as problems with the Pitt offense.
I think everyone would agree ...
... that we are "missing skill sets on offense needed to go far and it shows in certain situations and against certain opponents that can exploit the lack of those skills."
But this is true of EVERY team.
Plus, we are better at some other skills sets that other teams lack.
When you put this altogether, our team is #34 among College Basketball teams (out of 351) in the number of points they score each time they have the basketball.
... that we are "missing skill sets on offense needed to go far and it shows in certain situations and against certain opponents that can exploit the lack of those skills."
But this is true of EVERY team.
Plus, we are better at some other skills sets that other teams lack.
When you put this altogether, our team is #34 among College Basketball teams (out of 351) in the number of points they score each time they have the basketball.
Nothing wrong with that, what happened to them is typical Pitt basketball, a highly seeded power 5 team losing in the early rounds to a mid-major! Pitt has a long standing tradition of that, so basically, your comment doesn't really make Pitt's system appear better in any way.
In multiple other years it would have been acurate to post...
"Good thing Pitt puts so much emphasis on defense.
Oh... Wait."
This post was edited on 3/19 2:54 PM by Pitt79
Re: How about if we say this ...
This thread is similar to discussions of global warming that I have seen online. There are always a few people who insist that the earth is not warming, and their evidence is that we had a colder than normal winter. Despite the actual data that show a warming earth, their "eye test" is that it is not. Just as a colder winter in Pittsburgh can occur while the earth as a whole is warming, so, too, Pitt can have great difficulty scoring at times, while having a comparatively efficient offense.
This thread is similar to discussions of global warming that I have seen online. There are always a few people who insist that the earth is not warming, and their evidence is that we had a colder than normal winter. Despite the actual data that show a warming earth, their "eye test" is that it is not. Just as a colder winter in Pittsburgh can occur while the earth as a whole is warming, so, too, Pitt can have great difficulty scoring at times, while having a comparatively efficient offense.
Oh sorry, they lost in the 2nd round afew times, even as #1 seed. That's so much better! LOL
Originally posted by UPitt129:
Pitt79,
What tradition of losing to mid majors? The only one that really counts are kent many years ago and Bradley.
Pitt has never been upset in the first round like Baylor and isu were today.
And if you remember the 1st round game vs. the #16 seed, that team kept it close pretty late too.
mvk, as a matter of fact.....
I asked him once before which team would have a better offense, one that scored 70 points in a 75 possession game or one that score 65 points in a 60 possession game and he answered the question that it was obviously the team that scored 70 in a 75 possession game because 70 is more points than 65.
I think that he thought I was trying to trick him with my question, rather than point out how absurd his position is, but in any event he just simply doesn't get it. And he likely never will. He's one of those guys who doesn't understand that the object of the game isn't to score more points, it's to score more points than the other guys do.
I asked him once before which team would have a better offense, one that scored 70 points in a 75 possession game or one that score 65 points in a 60 possession game and he answered the question that it was obviously the team that scored 70 in a 75 possession game because 70 is more points than 65.
I think that he thought I was trying to trick him with my question, rather than point out how absurd his position is, but in any event he just simply doesn't get it. And he likely never will. He's one of those guys who doesn't understand that the object of the game isn't to score more points, it's to score more points than the other guys do.
Yinz guys and yur math can't even tell me if a player will get food poisoning or twist an ankle or collude with bookies to fix a game n at.
And yinz can't refute that pitt doesn't have an NBA caliber wing.
And yinz can't refute that guys who were better players would help us score more.
You take your math and throw it down the drain.
-----------
To Pitt 79, if I score 10 points in 10 tries, and you score 11 points in 15 tries. And we played a game where we both had the same amount of tries, who would win?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
And yinz can't refute that pitt doesn't have an NBA caliber wing.
And yinz can't refute that guys who were better players would help us score more.
You take your math and throw it down the drain.
-----------
To Pitt 79, if I score 10 points in 10 tries, and you score 11 points in 15 tries. And we played a game where we both had the same amount of tries, who would win?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: mvk, as a matter of fact.....
Which one is better depends on what the other team does, 70 on 75 is better than 65 on 60 if the other team scores 68, it's all relative. And that could be because you have good defense or they have bad offense, so again, this stat alone doesn't tell the whole story.
