The Analytics and Pitt

[Bethlehemjohn]

The analytics by themselves are not the issue, it is the lazy people who ONLY use analytics that are paralyzed by it.

There actually has to be a quantitative way to measure how these teams perform and so strength of schedule, who you beat and how much you beat or lose to them by have to be important.

However, what most miss is still the eye test. If you watch enough college basketball, you can tell who is good and who is bad. Pitt has been measured harshly because of their games against WVU and Michigan, but anyone who has watched basketball knows we are not remotely the same team now that we were then. So, when you hear someone say that Pitt can’t be any good because they lost badly to WVU and Michigan, they simply have not watched enough basketball to set the analytics apart from the way a team actually performs.

Once again, the ACC’s performance in out of conference games has put a dark cloud on all the teams and then when a team has an impressive win against one of their conference members, it can easily be dismissed by the analytics group.

The analytics simply treat all the games the same and don’t pay attention to the growth or lack of growth by teams. If the committee uses analytics, the eye test and common sense, our seed should end up being more like a 5 or 6. If they are lazy and only use the computers, we will end up being anywhere from 8 to 11.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

The analytics by themselves are not the issue, it is the lazy people who ONLY use analytics that are paralyzed by it.

There actually has to be a quantitative way to measure how these teams perform and so strength of schedule, who you beat and how much you beat or lose to them by have to be important.

However, what most miss is still the eye test. If you watch enough college basketball, you can tell who is good and who is bad. Pitt has been measured harshly because of their games against WVU and Michigan, but anyone who has watched basketball knows we are not remotely the same team now that we were then. So, when you hear someone say that Pitt can’t be any good because they lost badly to WVU and Michigan, they simply have not watched enough basketball to set the analytics apart from the way a team actually performs.

Once again, the ACC’s performance in out of conference games has put a dark cloud on all the teams and then when a team has an impressive win against one of their conference members, it can easily be dismissed by the analytics group.

The analytics simply treat all the games the same and don’t pay attention to the growth or lack of growth by teams. If the committee uses analytics, the eye test and common sense, our seed should end up being more like a 5 or 6. If they are lazy and only use the computers, we will end up being anywhere from 8 to 11.

I agree with everything, John. We lost to 2 mediocre to bad teams early in the season in wvu and Michigan. If we played them today, we'd most likely beat both by double digits. But the loss and the margin is in the computer and that's all they look at. Somehow, they think college basketball is purely a numbers game generated by computers and is linear and nothing else enters the equation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Right now the way we are playing, we deserve at least a 6 seed. If we make a run to the ACCT and win at least a couple of games there, we're a 5 or 4 seed. Especially if we win the ACCT.

 

[nycpanther98]

Good post. The 0-2 neutral record coupled with a 1 Q3 and 1 Q4 loss, and presumably the margin of our losses to WVU and Michigan, have us bogged down at the moment. Clemson is on the cusp of a Top 75 ranking. If they get there then that Q3 loss becomes a Q2 loss, which will help. Vandy could become a Q1 instead of a Q2 if they stay hot. Otherwise, take care of business and avoid any add'l Q3/Q4 losses and we should be fine come tournament time.

 

[SteelBowl70]

Good post. The 0-2 neutral record coupled with a 1 Q3 and 1 Q4 loss, and presumably the margin of our losses to WVU and Michigan, have us bogged down at the moment. Clemson is on the cusp of a Top 75 ranking. If they get there then that Q3 loss becomes a Q2 loss, which will help. Vandy could become a Q1 instead of a Q2 if they stay hot. Otherwise, take care of business and avoid any add'l Q3/Q4 losses and we should be fine come tournament time.

Clemson having 2 bad NC Q4 losses and a lousy non conference schedule hurts everybody and the perception of the league when they were in first place for so long. Their early season home 18 point loss to Loyola-Chicago did major damage. That game alone is keeping them over 75 and impacting our analytics.

 

[Pitt2006]

Well Pitt now 26 in the CBS top 25 and 1.

 

[Vader_Storm]

The analytics by themselves are not the issue, it is the lazy people who ONLY use analytics that are paralyzed by it.

There actually has to be a quantitative way to measure how these teams perform and so strength of schedule, who you beat and how much you beat or lose to them by have to be important.

However, what most miss is still the eye test. If you watch enough college basketball, you can tell who is good and who is bad. Pitt has been measured harshly because of their games against WVU and Michigan, but anyone who has watched basketball knows we are not remotely the same team now that we were then. So, when you hear someone say that Pitt can’t be any good because they lost badly to WVU and Michigan, they simply have not watched enough basketball to set the analytics apart from the way a team actually performs.

Once again, the ACC’s performance in out of conference games has put a dark cloud on all the teams and then when a team has an impressive win against one of their conference members, it can easily be dismissed by the analytics group.

The analytics simply treat all the games the same and don’t pay attention to the growth or lack of growth by teams. If the committee uses analytics, the eye test and common sense, our seed should end up being more like a 5 or 6. If they are lazy and only use the computers, we will end up being anywhere from 8 to 11.

The problem with team analytics is and this includes pomeroy and such, it cannot see improvement with a team or it cant see improvement with an individual player as the season moves on. What I mean by this, It cant see when a player is hurt, not playing, or a new player comes in and starts etc... and how it effects the actual team and could change the entire team moving forward.


The fact is, our team was bad the first 7 games of the season. It wasn't just West Virginia and Michigan. We were losing at halftime and struggled with William & Mary. We were losing at halftime to one of the worst teams in all of D1 basketball in Alabama State. Alabama State was losing games by 50 this year and we were losing at halftime to them on our home floor!!! Our non conference performance the first 7 games put us in a huge gigantic hole until the Northwestern game. We were beyond terrible the first 7 games and it will kill our team efficiency numbers until the season is over and we all start at 0 again next year.


If you look at our individual ORTG offensive power ratings for example between non conference schedule and ACC conference schedule and split it up, it tells a completely different story while playing a far harder schedule.


Everyone talks about Fede being the savior of this team and season with Hugley being gone. That isn't close to being 100% true. Look at the performance of the twins in non conference vs conference and how much better they are. Look at the improvement of Santos. Look At Nike Sibande who was coming off an ACL injury. Sibande had an ORTG of 0 against Michigan, West Virginia, and VCU. Sibande has an ORTG of 118 in acc conference play which is the best he has ever been in his entire college career. Look at the difference in Elliot. It goes on and on with how almost every player improved on offense and defense on our team.

The only guy on our team who hasn't played as well in ACC Conference play is Blake Hinson. Every other play on our entire roster has improved. And yet beat writers and people like Gary Parish dont understand that because they stare at the NET rankings all day long and they dont understand advanced efficiency.


There are some dangerous teams heading toward NCAA tournament play that are way better now (Creighton for example) and other teams like Uconn that are limping to the finish line.


On top of that, with this whole new nil era and transfer portal era, with all this movement of players and all these teams losing half its roster every year, its going to take more time for a lot of talented teams to become good and its going to happen later in the season.

No one is going to want Pitt in their bracket. No one is going to want Creighton who now has its roster back and healthy. Everyone is going to want a team like Rutgers who cant beat anyone now after one of their better players tore his acl.

The bigger problem is, these beat writers aren't watching the games. They just aren't watching the actual games. They are staring at NET rankings and forming opinions / biases off NET rankings.

 

[Protes]

The problem with team analytics is and this includes pomeroy and such, it cannot see improvement with a team or it cant see improvement with an individual player as the season moves on. What I mean by this, It cant see when a player is hurt, not playing, or a new player comes in and starts etc... and how it effects the actual team and could change the entire team moving forward.


The fact is, our team was bad the first 7 games of the season. It wasn't just West Virginia and Michigan. We were losing at halftime and struggled with William & Mary. We were losing at halftime to one of the worst teams in all of D1 basketball in Alabama State. Alabama State was losing games by 50 this year and we were losing at halftime to them on our home floor!!! Our non conference performance the first 7 games put us in a huge gigantic hole until the Northwestern game. We were beyond terrible the first 7 games and it will kill our team efficiency numbers until the season is over and we all start at 0 again next year.


If you look at our individual ORTG offensive power ratings for example between non conference schedule and ACC conference schedule and split it up, it tells a completely different story while playing a far harder schedule.


Everyone talks about Fede being the savior of this team and season with Hugley being gone. That isn't close to being 100% true. Look at the performance of the twins in non conference vs conference and how much better they are. Look at the improvement of Santos. Look At Nike Sibande who was coming off an ACL injury. Sibande had an ORTG of 0 against Michigan, West Virginia, and VCU. Sibande has an ORTG of 118 in acc conference play which is the best he has ever been in his entire college career. Look at the difference in Elliot. It goes on and on with how almost every player improved on offense and defense on our team.

The only guy on our team who hasn't played as well in ACC Conference play is Blake Hinson. Every other play on our entire roster has improved. And yet beat writers and people like Gary Parish dont understand that because they stare at the NET rankings all day long and they dont understand advanced efficiency.


There are some dangerous teams heading toward NCAA tournament play that are way better now (Creighton for example) and other teams like Uconn that are limping to the finish line.


On top of that, with this whole new nil era and transfer portal era, with all this movement of players and all these teams losing half its roster every year, its going to take more time for a lot of talented teams to become good and its going to happen later in the season.

No one is going to want Pitt in their bracket. No one is going to want Creighton who now has its roster back and healthy. Everyone is going to want a team like Rutgers who cant beat anyone now after one of their better players tore his acl.

The bigger problem is, these beat writers aren't watching the games. They just aren't watching the actual games. They are staring at NET rankings and forming opinions / biases off NET rankings.

Yep, there is no nuance when coldly looking at just stats or failing to qualitatively evaluate a team's season. Nor does there seem to be any consideration for the injury factor, as you allude to here. If a team gets their best payer back mid-season and you lose to them, it's not the same as losing to them before that. One would hope the committee takes all of these factors into consideration when determining the field.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Yep, there is no nuance when coldly looking at just stats or failing to qualitatively evaluate a team's season. Nor does there seem to be any consideration for the injury factor, as you allude to here. If a team gets their best payer back mid-season and you lose to them, it's not the same as losing to them before that. One would hope the committee takes all of these factors into consideration when determining the field.

What the heck happened to justifying a team being good or bad simply by "wins or winning, especially against good teams".

Wins is the college football standard. It should always be the standard in any sport. A 3 loss team isn't getting to the playoffs. I barely watch football and even I know this. Winning matters. Winning counts. It doesn't matter if its by 1 point or 100 points, winning advances you in the NCAA Tournament, not an efficiency website rankings or a NET ranking.



Now in college basketball the gospel is "NET" efficiency to rank teams. and the NCAA doesn't even release the calculation of it. It is ridiculous.


Like I said, the rpi isn't perfect, the net is far from perfect, torvik, pomeroy, none of these sites are perfect. I would average them all out together and rank teams using all of them, including the eye test and actual "wins".

The bottom line is, winning by 1 point every game is a heck of a lot more important than a team like Ohio State losing every game and having a fancy NET ranking next to their name with their ugly record right next to it. And while Lunardi still wants to pump Ohio State, their 11-14 record and losing 11 of their last 12 games has them where they belong, at the bottom of the Big Ten looking up at everybody.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

The analytics by themselves are not the issue, it is the lazy people who ONLY use analytics that are paralyzed by it.

There actually has to be a quantitative way to measure how these teams perform and so strength of schedule, who you beat and how much you beat or lose to them by have to be important.

However, what most miss is still the eye test. If you watch enough college basketball, you can tell who is good and who is bad. Pitt has been measured harshly because of their games against WVU and Michigan, but anyone who has watched basketball knows we are not remotely the same team now that we were then. So, when you hear someone say that Pitt can’t be any good because they lost badly to WVU and Michigan, they simply have not watched enough basketball to set the analytics apart from the way a team actually performs.

Once again, the ACC’s performance in out of conference games has put a dark cloud on all the teams and then when a team has an impressive win against one of their conference members, it can easily be dismissed by the analytics group.

The analytics simply treat all the games the same and don’t pay attention to the growth or lack of growth by teams. If the committee uses analytics, the eye test and common sense, our seed should end up being more like a 5 or 6. If they are lazy and only use the computers, we will end up being anywhere from 8 to 11.

Sagarin’s computer today has Pitt full season overall rating at #45 which would translate in theory to a #1, 12 seed. On the other hand, his “recent” rating has Pitt at #31. This would translate to a #3, 8 seed. Don’t know how much the early season is effecting the “recent“ rating, if at all. In any event this at least reflects that this team is better than it was at the start of the season.

Not surprisingly Sagarin’s ratings also have the ACC as weak. Only Virginia at #18 and Miami at #22 are in the ”recent“ rating top 25 (#15 and #26 in the overall full season rating).

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Clemson having 2 bad NC Q4 losses and a lousy non conference schedule hurts everybody and the perception of the league when they were in first place for so long. Their early season home 18 point loss to Loyola-Chicago did major damage. That game alone is keeping them over 75 and impacting our analytics.

It was in Atlanta, not at home and Loyola is nowhere near as bad as their record. They arent a "real" Q4 team

 

[PittPoker]

The problem with team analytics is and this includes pomeroy and such, it cannot see improvement with a team or it cant see improvement with an individual player as the season moves on. What I mean by this, It cant see when a player is hurt, not playing, or a new player comes in and starts etc... and how it effects the actual team and could change the entire team moving forward.


The fact is, our team was bad the first 7 games of the season. It wasn't just West Virginia and Michigan. We were losing at halftime and struggled with William & Mary. We were losing at halftime to one of the worst teams in all of D1 basketball in Alabama State. Alabama State was losing games by 50 this year and we were losing at halftime to them on our home floor!!! Our non conference performance the first 7 games put us in a huge gigantic hole until the Northwestern game. We were beyond terrible the first 7 games and it will kill our team efficiency numbers until the season is over and we all start at 0 again next year.


If you look at our individual ORTG offensive power ratings for example between non conference schedule and ACC conference schedule and split it up, it tells a completely different story while playing a far harder schedule.


Everyone talks about Fede being the savior of this team and season with Hugley being gone. That isn't close to being 100% true. Look at the performance of the twins in non conference vs conference and how much better they are. Look at the improvement of Santos. Look At Nike Sibande who was coming off an ACL injury. Sibande had an ORTG of 0 against Michigan, West Virginia, and VCU. Sibande has an ORTG of 118 in acc conference play which is the best he has ever been in his entire college career. Look at the difference in Elliot. It goes on and on with how almost every player improved on offense and defense on our team.

The only guy on our team who hasn't played as well in ACC Conference play is Blake Hinson. Every other play on our entire roster has improved. And yet beat writers and people like Gary Parish dont understand that because they stare at the NET rankings all day long and they dont understand advanced efficiency.


There are some dangerous teams heading toward NCAA tournament play that are way better now (Creighton for example) and other teams like Uconn that are limping to the finish line.


On top of that, with this whole new nil era and transfer portal era, with all this movement of players and all these teams losing half its roster every year, its going to take more time for a lot of talented teams to become good and its going to happen later in the season.

No one is going to want Pitt in their bracket. No one is going to want Creighton who now has its roster back and healthy. Everyone is going to want a team like Rutgers who cant beat anyone now after one of their better players tore his acl.

The bigger problem is, these beat writers aren't watching the games. They just aren't watching the actual games. They are staring at NET rankings and forming opinions / biases off NET rankings.

Sorry but I totally disagree with you about Fede. If Hugley was playing the whole season no way we are as good. And we wouldn't be 19-7 and 12-3 in conf either. I don't care what your advance metrics say Fede replacing Hugley was a MAJOR reason why this team started to gel. And Fede has continually improved. So much so that I can't see Hugley coming back next season because he won't start and I doubt he wants to come off the bench for only a few minutes.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Sorry but I totally disagree with you about Fede. If Hugley was playing the whole season no way we are as good. And we wouldn't be 19-7 and 12-3 in conf either. I don't care what your advance metrics say Fede replacing Hugley was a MAJOR reason why this team started to gel. And Fede has continually improved. So much so that I can't see Hugley coming back next season because he won't start and I doubt he wants to come off the bench for only a few minutes.

You missed my point. My point was, for as bad as Pitt was earlier in the year and we were beyond bad the first 7 games of the season, we needed a lot more than Fede replacing Hugley to have the turnaround that we have had from the first 7 games until now. The entire roster improved after that point in time. And our record wouldnt be anywhere near as good as what it is now without all the other players improving on the roster.

You seem to forget that no one on the team remembered how to shoot the ball early on in the season.

Here are the 3 point shooting percentages earlier in the year which had nothing to do with Fede and Hugley.

West Virginia- 21%
Michigan- 30%
VCU-22%
Alabama State- 34%
Farleigh Dickinson- 32%
Ut Martin- 26%


We couldn't shoot the ball against anybody. Some of these teams are some of the worst in all of division 1 basketball and we still couldn't shoot well.

Yes, Fede helped a lot. The 3 point shooting improvement for the entire roster helped far more.

 

[PittPoker]

You missed my point. My point was, for as bad as Pitt was earlier in the year and we were beyond bad the first 7 games of the season, we needed a lot more than Fede replacing Hugley to have the turnaround that we have had from the first 7 games until now. The entire roster improved after that point in time. And our record wouldnt be anywhere near as good as what it is now without all the other players improving on the roster.

You seem to forget that no one on the team remembered how to shoot the ball early on in the season.

Here are the 3 point shooting percentages earlier in the year which had nothing to do with Fede and Hugley.

West Virginia- 21%
Michigan- 30%
VCU-22%
Alabama State- 34%
Farleigh Dickinson- 32%
Ut Martin- 26%


We couldn't shoot the ball against anybody. Some of these teams are some of the worst in all of division 1basketball and we still couldn't shoot well.

Yes, Fede helped a lot. The 3 point shooting improvement for the entire roster helped far more.

If Fede started every game in the ones you listed and played the majority of minutes, you don't think our shooting % would have gone up. He's an excellent hedger, sets amazing ball screens. Hugley does none like that.

Look I agree the shooting wasn't good early but our offensive philosophy in those games was different. When Hugley started(obv injured and didn't play in a couple) the main gameplan was a plodding boring offense of continually try and get Hugley the ball inside over and over. Our guys really didn't have the time to get into a rhythm at all offensively. It was all about Hugley.

 

[Ski11585]

It was in Atlanta, not at home and Loyola is nowhere near as bad as their record. They arent a "real" Q4 team

False. Loyola is absolute garbage this year.

 

[Vader_Storm]

If Fede started every game in the ones you listed and played the majority of minutes, you don't think our shooting % would have gone up. He's an excellent hedger, sets amazing ball screens. Hugley does none like that.

Look I agree the shooting wasn't good early but our offensive philosophy in those games was different. When Hugley started(obv injured and didn't play in a couple) the main gameplan was a plodding boring offense of continually try and get Hugley the ball inside over and over. Our guys really didn't have the time to get into a rhythm at all offensively. It was all about Hugley.

No I dont think it would have mattered a whole lot. Because if you rewatched some of those earlier games, especially against the bad teams, a lot of the misses were wide open looks where there was no one even close to the shooter.


I also think this team needed time to gel as a team with all the new players we added.



I also think Nike Sibande was no where close to being 100% to start the season off coming off a torn acl when he started playing early in the season. Sibande wasn't even jumping for rebounds early in the season, I have comments on this forum from the games earlier because he looked unsure if his leg was going to hold up and he looked scared jumping on it.


Sibande has looked healthy in acc play, which has been a huge X factor for us. His shooting and timely bucket making has been a huge X factor for us.


Im not suggesting Fede was not a big difference maker, he certainly was. But Fede is not Dejaun Blair. He's a lot close to senior Gary Mcghee right now which is perfectly fine.

 

[Drew1208]

I agree with everything, John. We lost to 2 mediocre to bad teams early in the season in wvu and Michigan. If we played them today, we'd most likely beat both by double digits. But the loss and the margin is in the computer and that's all they look at. Somehow, they think college basketball is purely a numbers game generated by computers and is linear and nothing else enters the equation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Right now the way we are playing, we deserve at least a 6 seed. If we make a run to the ACCT and win at least a couple of games there, we're a 5 or 4 seed. Especially if we win the ACCT.

Those two games hurt but if we don't lose to vcu, vandy, we are ranked. Even only losing one of those games and we are probably ranked. We are just on the higher side of losses for the top 25. Only a few teams have lost as much as us and made it in the top 25.

 

[PittPoker]

No I dont think it would have mattered a whole lot. Because if you rewatched some of those earlier games, especially against the bad teams, a lot of the misses were wide open looks where there was no one even close to the shooter.


I also think this team needed time to gel as a team with all the new players we added.



I also think Nike Sibande was no where close to being 100% to start the season off coming off a torn acl when he started playing early in the season. Sibande wasn't even jumping for rebounds early in the season, I have comments on this forum from the games earlier because he looked unsure if his leg was going to hold up and he looked scared jumping on it.


Sibande has looked healthy in acc play, which has been a huge X factor for us. His shooting and timely bucket making has been a huge X factor for us.


Im not suggesting Fede was not a big difference maker, he certainly was. But Fede is not Dejaun Blair. He's a lot close to senior Gary Mcghee right now which is perfectly fine.

I loved Mcghee. We were #1 in the AP with Mcghee his last year. And agree about Nike. Definitely wasn't 100% early on. But I still feel you are selling Fede short. Hugley was hurting this team offensively and defensively.

 

[Wanstash21]

This is with all walks of life ... a lot of "experts" are hacks ... by the book, they can get by ... everyday problems.. they can get by ... big time issue happens? that's when they crumble ... most of these braketlogists had their bracket picked before the season started ... 14th place team finishing 1st? yeah, it's putting their brains in a blender... these guys don't watch or study the full scope .. only what info they have handed to them on a silver platter.

on a bigger scale, look at Covid. Complete and utter panic ... nobody knew what to do .. it was handled beyond poorly because nobody expected it to happen. They know what to do with the flu and other mild virus' ... we're basically Covid of college hoops... bet you didn't expect that comp today.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

If Fede started every game in the ones you listed and played the majority of minutes, you don't think our shooting % would have gone up. He's an excellent hedger, sets amazing ball screens. Hugley does none like that.

Look I agree the shooting wasn't good early but our offensive philosophy in those games was different. When Hugley started(obv injured and didn't play in a couple) the main gameplan was a plodding boring offense of continually try and get Hugley the ball inside over and over. Our guys really didn't have the time to get into a rhythm at all offensively. It was all about Hugley.

I’m not sure how this is even arguable anymore. The rise of Fede is why the team ascended. He makes everyone better.

Constantly plugging the twins averaging 5/5 combined is making him lose credibility

 

[SteelBowl70]

Those two games hurt but if we don't lose to vcu, vandy, we are ranked. Even only losing one of those games and we are probably ranked. We are just on the higher side of losses for the top 25. Only a few teams have lost as much as us and made it in the top 25.

3 teams with 7 losses and 3 with 8 were ranked last week. Mostly between 18 and 24.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

The analytics by themselves are not the issue, it is the lazy people who ONLY use analytics that are paralyzed by it.

There actually has to be a quantitative way to measure how these teams perform and so strength of schedule, who you beat and how much you beat or lose to them by have to be important.

However, what most miss is still the eye test. If you watch enough college basketball, you can tell who is good and who is bad. Pitt has been measured harshly because of their games against WVU and Michigan, but anyone who has watched basketball knows we are not remotely the same team now that we were then. So, when you hear someone say that Pitt can’t be any good because they lost badly to WVU and Michigan, they simply have not watched enough basketball to set the analytics apart from the way a team actually performs.

Once again, the ACC’s performance in out of conference games has put a dark cloud on all the teams and then when a team has an impressive win against one of their conference members, it can easily be dismissed by the analytics group.

The analytics simply treat all the games the same and don’t pay attention to the growth or lack of growth by teams. If the committee uses analytics, the eye test and common sense, our seed should end up being more like a 5 or 6. If they are lazy and only use the computers, we will end up being anywhere from 8 to 11.

The analytics by themselves are not the issue, it is the lazy people who ONLY use analytics that are paralyzed by it.

I posted something of the sort on the other board yesterday. There are major flaws in these programs because they don't seem to weight a loss/win in February over November. That makes a big difference. A team could have injuries now, or an ineligible player now playing, or in Pitt's case 7 new guys taking a month or so to jell.

Also, Among other things. I mentioned "margin of victory" not purely because of the quantifiable values, but it represents the eye test.

I also think these programs way, way, way too emphasize strength of schedules. Way too much. I used WVU loss to Texas as an example. They lost by 34 points to Texas, So that was a "Quad 1" loss. 34 points!! That was a better "loss" than say us losing to Vandy by 1?? Really? That's a major flaw.

 

[Vader_Storm]

I’m not sure how this is even arguable anymore. The rise of Fede is why the team ascended. He makes everyone better.

Constantly plugging the twins averaging 5/5 combined is making him lose credibility

When Fede was sitting on the bench against Florida State the other night in a game we were losing in the 2nd half after he picked up his 3rd foul, Diaz Graham stepped into the game and in 11 minutes total playing time added 6 points and 5 rebounds on 60% shooting. Pitt was winning by 4 points with 4 minutes to play before pulling away.

I understand you don't like Big John. And that is fine. There is no need to short change other players important contributions to helping our team win, including in a game during a critical stretch where Fede wasnt even on the floor playing.

 

[Pitt2006]

3 teams with 7 losses and 3 with 8 were ranked last week. Illinois is 14 with 7 losses and got number 8 last night.

Yes but the quality of those losses are much worse for Pitt with Clemson now being quad 3 they do have a chance to bump back up to quad 2, but the loss to fsu and Clemson are the killers right now.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

Yes but the quality of those losses are much worse for Pitt with Clemson now being quad 3 they do have a chance to bump back up to quad 2, but the loss to fsu and Clemson are the killers right now.

And again, that’s dumb.

 

[nycpanther98]

As an aside, can anyone explain the NET ratings of the top 4 Mountain West teams who come in at 18, 24, 31, and 36?

 

[KennyHeisman8]

As an aside, can anyone explain the NET ratings of the top 4 Mountain West teams who come in at 18, 24, 31, and 36?

No. It’s why the metric is awful

 

[BreakingPitt]

lol

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

When Fede was sitting on the bench against Florida State the other night in a game we were losing in the 2nd half after he picked up his 3rd foul, Diaz Graham stepped into the game and in 11 minutes total playing time added 6 points and 5 rebounds on 60% shooting. Pitt was winning by 4 points with 4 minutes to play before pulling away.

I understand you don't like Big John. And that is fine. There is no need to short change other players important contributions to helping our team win, including in a game during a critical stretch where Fede wasnt even on the floor playing.

It has nothing to do with not liking them. They’re fine. They’re not the reason Pitt is 12-3. And if Pitt didn’t have them they’d likely be at worst 11-4 because they would’ve gotten someone else. And that’s being very generous saying they are worth a win in the ACC.

Imagine if Oklahoma State and WVU didn’t run fede’s commitment off. What does that 12-3 turn into if we’re forced to play ONLY the twins at the center position and possibly unknown 3rd player? And don’t extrapolate advanced metrics in a thread poo pooing advanced metrics because that’s now how they work.

Order of importance:
1. Burton’s ascension to a top 3 ACC player
2. Hugley leaving/Fede stepping up
3. Hinson

That’s it. That’s the list. The rest of the players are nice players that can step up here and there but those 3 are the straw that stirs the drink. Here’s hoping Capel finds more of those in the portal.

 

[Bethlehemjohn]

As an aside, can anyone explain the NET ratings of the top 4 Mountain West teams who come in at 18, 24, 31, and 36?

Because they all played good non conference schedules and also won a fair amount of games against those teams. It’s a good league, but not as good as the ACC.

 

[Vader_Storm]

It has nothing to do with not liking them. They’re fine. They’re not the reason Pitt is 12-3. And if Pitt didn’t have them they’d likely be at worst 11-4 because they would’ve gotten someone else. And that’s being very generous saying they are worth a win in the ACC.

Imagine if Oklahoma State and WVU didn’t run fede’s commitment off. What does that 12-3 turn into if we’re forced to play ONLY the twins at the center position and possibly unknown 3rd player? And don’t extrapolate advanced metrics in a thread poo pooing advanced metrics because that’s now how they work.

Order of importance:
1. Burton’s ascension to a top 3 ACC player
2. Hugley leaving/Fede stepping up
3. Hinson

That’s it. That’s the list. The rest of the players are nice players that can step up here and there but those 3 are the straw that stirs the drink. Here’s hoping Capel finds more of those in the portal.

Ok, that is your order of importance. Here is my order of importance to winning games the rest of the season and why we are where we are in the acc.


1) Pitt has 5 players shooting over 36% at a minimum from 3 point range in acc conference play with a full balanced attacking offense. Elliot is a red hot 42% from 3 in ACC play, Hinson is 39%. Our team is making 10 threes per game in ACC play which ranks #1 in the league. Hinson has made 1/3 of the entire rosters 3 pointers in ACC Conference play and Elliot is right behind him.

2) Pitt is 6th in the ACC in total free throw attempts and 2nd overall in the entire ACC in free throw shooting percentage and we are shooting over 80% from the free throw line in league play. All those close wins we have? Look at the free throw numbers.


3) Pitt's field goal defense is #2 in the ACC Conference. We are holding teams to 40.5% shooting, which is right behind Clemson for #1 overall in the league and we are better than Virginia right now.



Pitt has won big games this year without Burton playing well. Pitt has won big games this year without Hinson playing well. Fede anchors our entire team defense, so your point there is justified.

We have 5 players in ACC Conference play scoring at least 9 points per game minimum. We have a number of players that can step up and beat you on any given night, which is one of the main reasons we are so dangerous. Our 3 point shooters open up the entire offense for everything else to happen.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Ok, that is your order of importance. Here is my order of importance to winning games the rest of the season and why we are where we are in the acc.


1) Pitt has 5 players shooting over 36% at a minimum from 3 point range in acc conference play with a full balanced attacking offense. Elliot is a red hot 42% from 3 in ACC play, Hinson is 39%. Our team is making 10 threes per game in ACC play which ranks #1 in the league. Hinson has made 1/3 of the entire rosters 3 pointers in ACC Conference play and Elliot is right behind him.

2) Pitt is 6th in the ACC in total free throw attempts and 2nd overall in the entire ACC in free throw shooting percentage and we are shooting over 80% from the free throw line in league play. All those close wins we have? Look at the free throw numbers.


3) Pitt's field goal defense is #2 in the ACC Conference. We are holding teams to 40.5% shooting, which is right behind Clemson for #1 overall in the league and we are better than Virginia right now.



Pitt has won big games this year without Burton playing well. Pitt has won big games this year without Hinson playing well. Fede anchors our entire team defense, so your point there is justified.

We have 5 players in ACC Conference play scoring at least 9 points per game minimum. We have a number of players that can step up and beat you on any given night, which is one of the main reasons we are so dangerous. Our 3 point shooters open up the entire offense for everything else to happen.

Using 1k words to say the exact same thing I said with stats isn’t anything new

 

[Vader_Storm]

Ok, that is your order of importance. Here is my order of importance to winning games the rest of the season and why we are where we are in the acc.


1) Pitt has 5 players shooting over 36% at a minimum from 3 point range in acc conference play with a full balanced attacking offense. Elliot is a red hot 42% from 3 in ACC play, Hinson is 39%. Our team is making 10 threes per game in ACC play which ranks #1 in the league. Hinson has made 1/3 of the entire rosters 3 pointers in ACC Conference play and Elliot is right behind him.

2) Pitt is 6th in the ACC in total free throw attempts and 2nd overall in the entire ACC in free throw shooting percentage and we are shooting over 80% from the free throw line in league play. All those close wins we have? Look at the free throw numbers.


3) Pitt's field goal defense is #2 in the ACC Conference. We are holding teams to 40.5% shooting, which is right behind Clemson for #1 overall in the league and we are better than Virginia right now.



Pitt has won big games this year without Burton playing well. Pitt has won big games this year without Hinson playing well. Fede anchors our entire team defense, so your point there is justified.

We have 5 players in ACC Conference play scoring at least 9 points per game minimum. We have a number of players that can step up and beat you on any given night, which is one of the main reasons we are so dangerous. Our 3 point shooters open up the entire offense for everything else to happen.

By the way, this has to be one of the best shooting backcourts not only in Pitt history but ACC basketball history from the free throw line.

These are the shooting percentage from our backcourt in acc conference play.

Burton-90.5%
Cummings- 89%
Sibande- 89%
Elliot- 85%

We could throw Santos in there too at 84%, but those numbers above are scary good.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Well we will see when the seedings come out how much this all plays into it. Let's face it, barring a major collapse, Pitt is a shoe in. And with our closing schedule, and say ACC tourney, there is no reason why we couldn't finish 5-2 (24-9). That is solidly 7-6-5 seed.