You Never Know

[diggerfoot]

I don't expect this post to turn pessimists into optimists, just to temper expectations of "certain" doom to "possible" doom based on the reality that you never know what will happen with an alternative scenario.

Take the Notre Dame game, for example. They made 65% of their threes while playing without two key starters. Yet if we look at likely scenarios that does not spell doom as much as some might think. We pretty much had our way on offense in the paint. If Reimer and Turner played perhaps we score a few less points. Past history suggests we still might get at least 80 points, but that seemingly makes for a tighter game. Except ....

Notre Dame likely would have run more offense through the post if Reimer and Turner played. Even if that shift produced 65% shooting as well, that would be less scoring for Notre Dame, but they likely would not have increased their two-point shooting from 41% to 65% even with their two posts in the game. In terms of likely scenarios, whatever Notre Dame might have gained on defense with Reimer and Turner they would have lost on offense for that particular, unusual game (unusual, unless you think their hot hand was due to our defense not just being lax, but pathetic compared to all their other opponents).

Ah, but why not stick with the three-pointer even with their starting posts in the game, after seeing how well they were shooting (not just the younger Mabrey by the way)? Did you see how some of those threes were made? The person we think is the best three-point shooter ever usually took her threes one of two ways. KML's feet were squared and set, perhaps receiving a kick out, or she took one step forward into her shot, perhaps as a trailer. She did not take step back threes, a la Notre Dame in that game. She did not take turn around threes, a la Notre Dame. She did not take threes slightly off balance on one foot. When she took shots with the clock winding down I don't recall her hitting them with increased accuracy. Notre Dame had no reason to believe that the type of three-pointers they were taking were a significantly higher percentage shot than running a balanced offense with their posts.

There were, of course, a few normal threes. From what I recall, the normal threes came after offensive rebounds, to me a bigger concern from that game than the threes they were hitting. Ah, but if we are going with "what if" for Turner and Reimer, then let's include "what if" for Butler. Any current player might be called to guard the perimeter after a rotation, because any player could in theory, even Stewart and Tuck. Butler no doubt would be tasked with "staying home."

From what I've seen so far I've been impressed more by how smoothly the team works even with two key freshmen than concerned about DePaul's threes from downtown or Notre Dame's rushed threes. Who knows for sure what really would happen with any alternative scenario, but there is at least some chance that something plays out better rather than worse.

 

[Bgillon]

Take a look at ND's 3 pt % shooting against DePaul last night. Very high again. I think they are seeing Marina come into her own as a scorer. Then add their posts coming back and they will be very formidable. And adding their posts would not necessarily take away from 3 pt shooting but compliment it. Reference what KML did for us last year. When needed she took over some games and opened up the offensive floor. My concern though is our shooting. Other than Stewie, no one else is shooting very well other than layups.

 

[hoophuskee]

I don't expect this post to turn pessimists into optimists, just to temper expectations of "certain" doom to "possible" doom based on the reality that you never know what will happen with an alternative scenario.

Take the Notre Dame game, for example. They made 65% of their threes while playing without two key starters. Yet if we look at likely scenarios that does not spell doom as much as some might think. We pretty much had our way on offense in the paint. If Reimer and Turner played perhaps we score a few less points. Past history suggests we still might get at least 80 points, but that seemingly makes for a tighter game. Except ....

Notre Dame likely would have run more offense through the post if Reimer and Turner played. Even if that shift produced 65% shooting as well, that would be less scoring for Notre Dame, but they likely would not have increased their two-point shooting from 41% to 65% even with their two posts in the game. In terms of likely scenarios, whatever Notre Dame might have gained on defense with Reimer and Turner they would have lost on offense for that particular, unusual game (unusual, unless you think their hot hand was due to our defense not just being lax, but pathetic compared to all their other opponents).

Ah, but why not stick with the three-pointer even with their starting posts in the game, after seeing how well they were shooting (not just the younger Mabrey by the way)? Did you see how some of those threes were made? The person we think is the best three-point shooter ever usually took her threes one of two ways. KML's feet were squared and set, perhaps receiving a kick out, or she took one step forward into her shot, perhaps as a trailer. She did not take step back threes, a la Notre Dame in that game. She did not take turn around threes, a la Notre Dame. She did not take threes slightly off balance on one foot. When she took shots with the clock winding down I don't recall her hitting them with increased accuracy. Notre Dame had no reason to believe that the type of three-pointers they were taking were a significantly higher percentage shot than running a balanced offense with their posts.

There were, of course, a few normal threes. From what I recall, the normal threes came after offensive rebounds, to me a bigger concern from that game than the threes they were hitting. Ah, but if we are going with "what if" for Turner and Reimer, then let's include "what if" for Butler. Any current player might be called to guard the perimeter after a rotation, because any player could in theory, even Stewart and Tuck. Butler no doubt would be tasked with "staying home."

From what I've seen so far I've been impressed more by how smoothly the team works even with two key freshmen than concerned about DePaul's threes from downtown or Notre Dame's rushed threes. Who knows for sure what really would happen with any alternative scenario, but there is at least some chance that something plays out better rather than worse.

As usual your posts are excellent - spot on. Were you a coach at any time?

 

[Woof 101]

OP has a very keen sense of the obvious here... Not always found on this forum...

 

[UcMiami]

Take a look at ND's 3 pt % shooting against DePaul last night. Very high again. I think they are seeing Marina come into her own as a scorer. Then add their posts coming back and they will be very formidable. And adding their posts would not necessarily take away from 3 pt shooting but compliment it. Reference what KML did for us last year. When needed she took over some games and opened up the offensive floor. My concern though is our shooting. Other than Stewie, no one else is shooting very well other than layups.

Ah, but unless Marina is a unique player never before seen in basketball for either gender, she will end the year at 50% or less - most likely 45% or less - which means that she will have a number of games coming up where she goes 1-4, or 0-3, or 2-7. etc.
There is a law of average and a record book and the more shots you take the more likely you are to fall within the confines of precedent.
ND while shooting very well for the DePaul game found that to be true in the second half of that game, having shot something like 67% in the first quarter and 64% for the first half, they dropped back into more usual good shooting nights by the end of the game.

 

[Bgillon]

Ah, but unless Marina is a unique player never before seen in basketball for either gender, she will end the year at 50% or less - most likely 45% or less - which means that she will have a number of games coming up where she goes 1-4, or 0-3, or 2-7. etc.
There is a law of average and a record book and the more shots you take the more likely you are to fall within the confines of precedent.
ND while shooting very well for the DePaul game found that to be true in the second half of that game, having shot something like 67% in the first quarter and 64% for the first half, they dropped back into more usual good shooting nights by the end of the game.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to explain why Marina may only shoot 1-4 or 0-3 in some games. And your point was? I believe she will become a valuable asset to ND even when one or two of their post players return. And if I were her coach, I would be very happy with her play.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Is Marina the new KML?

 

[Kibitzer]

Is Marina the new KML?

Mabrey? Maybe. She's off to a good start as a freshman -- so once she nails about 350+ more triples (including several clutch shots in NC games), we can call her "the new KML."

But not just yet.

 

[meyers7]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to explain why Marina may only shoot 1-4 or 0-3 in some games. And your point was?

Umm, prolly because some people on here seem to be under the impression that ND will continue to shoot way above 50% from the 3. And when they add back in their posts (Turner and Reimer, who may actually never be 100% this year), UCONN doesn't stand a chance against them.

 

[UcMiami]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to explain why Marina may only shoot 1-4 or 0-3 in some games. And your point was? I believe she will become a valuable asset to ND even when one or two of their post players return. And if I were her coach, I would be very happy with her play.

She already is a valued asset - just pointing out to many posters including the one quoted, that many teams and players including Uconn have had weeks of torrid shooting, but there is a price to be paid down the line, simply based on the law of averages and a quick look at record books. The same is true of typically good shooting players that go cold for a week or two - it doesn't last and they will warm up again.
ND is always one of the best shooting teams in the country and a good three point shooting team - but their team record for a year is somewhere around 50% overall and probably around 40% from three - very similar to Uconn's records. They have put together two really good games in a row, but the exception some people seem to have that it will be maintained at that rate is unrealistic. They also have had two very cold shooting games in a row from the FT line, at 54% and 60% - not a trend that is likely to continue either.

 

[Kibitzer]

She already is a valued asset - just pointing out to many posters including the one quoted, that many teams and players including Uconn have had weeks of torrid shooting, but there is a price to be paid down the line, simply based on the law of averages and a quick look at record books.

I agree with your reliance on past performance as the most reliant predictor of future performance (or behavior, just ask any psychiatrist), as statistical analysts will attest. How do you think Bill James and his counterparts, disciples, or imitators command such attention and generous reimbursement from the fellows who own big league teams? They cash in on their ability to predict individual performance, based solely on past performance.

OK, so what about the law of averages -- how or where does it fit in?

It doesn't

Let me explain. The law of averages tells us that a coin flip is a dead-on 50-50 shot. Every single time. Even if you flip "heads" 50 times in a row, the odds on flip #51 remain 50-50. Same goes for the roulette wheel or the daily lottery.

So what are the odds of Marina making her next trey? Based on her very limited past performance (college only, HS doesn't count), it's about 50--60%. A smart bettor would bet against her nailing hat shot, for two reasons: (1) insufficient body of work, making current stats unreliable; and lack of precedent -- nobody has ever sustained that level of 3-point shooting accuracy before.

Let's go to a very current example, tonight's game, Golden State vs. Boston Celtics. GS has won 23 in a row and are, I believe, favored by about 2-3 points. Some bettors will take Boston and the points and a few prognosticators will even predict a Celtics victory. Why? Well, the Celtics only lost to the Warriors by four points (2X) last year, GS has just traveled 5,000+ miles and, perhaps most important, Avery Bradley is a tough defender who just might limit Stephen Curry's production; n.b., no mention of law of averages.

OK, 'Yarders,, your call -- Marina or Celtics vs. Warriors. Or your next coin flip.

 

[PhillyCoach]

I agree with your reliance on past performance as the most reliant predictor of future performance (or behavior, just ask any psychiatrist), as statistical analysts will attest. How do you think Bill James and his counterparts, disciples, or imitators command such attention and generous reimbursement from the fellows who own big league teams? They cash in on their ability to predict individual performance, based solely on past performance.

OK, so what about the law of averages -- how or where does it fit in?

It doesn't

Let me explain. The law of averages tells us that a coin flip is a dead-on 50-50 shot. Every single time. Even if you flip "heads" 50 times in a row, the odds on flip #51 remain 50-50. Same goes for the roulette wheel or the daily lottery.

So what are the odds of Marina making her next trey? Based on her very limited past performance (college only, HS doesn't count), it's about 50--60%. A smart bettor would bet against her nailing hat shot, for two reasons: (1) insufficient body of work, making current stats unreliable; and lack of precedent -- nobody has ever sustained that level of 3-point shooting accuracy before.

Let's go to a very current example, tonight's game, Golden State vs. Boston Celtics. GS has won 23 in a row and are, I believe favored by about 2-3 points. Some bettors will take Boston and the points and a few prognosticators will even predict a Celtics victory. Why? Well, the Celtics only lost to the Warriors by four points (2X) last year, GS has just traveled 5,000+ miles and, perhaps most important, Avery Bradley is a tough defender who just might limit Stephen Curry's production; n.b., no mention of law of averages.

OK, 'Yarders,, your call -- Marina or Celtics vs. Warriors. Or your next coin flip.

Hey Kib --- IMHO (if ND and UConn meet again) that the odds are very high that MO will be playing Marina and that Marina will not have a high scoring night. My guess is that her stats will be below average for her season.
I would also take a wild guess and say that UConn will probably win the game too! Of course, maybe it will all turn out different than what I just speculated.

 

[Kibitzer]

Hey Kib --- IMHO (if ND and UConn meet again) that the odds are very high that MO will be playing Marina and that Marina will not have a high scoring night. My guess is that her stats will be below average for her season.
I would also take a wild guess and say that UConn will probably win the game too! Of course, maybe it will all turn out different than what I just speculated.

Your prediction (MO vs. Marina) and your guess (UConn will win) are both based on past performance -- by both Moriah and UConn. Smart money.

 

[arty155]

... the odds are very high that MO will be playing Marina and that Marina will not have a high scoring night.

"Connecticut Huskies guard Moriah Jefferson (4) is off to the races after stealing a pass intended for Notre Dame Fighting Irish guard Marina Mabrey" [Brad Horrigan / Hartford Courant ]

"Marina Mabrey scored just one time in the second half, on a drive to the basket. Mabrey joined the club of guards who've gotten the "Mo-Jeff" treatment..." [Mechelle Voepel, espnW.com]

 

[UcMiami]

I agree with your reliance on past performance as the most reliant predictor of future performance (or behavior, just ask any psychiatrist), as statistical analysts will attest. How do you think Bill James and his counterparts, disciples, or imitators command such attention and generous reimbursement from the fellows who own big league teams? They cash in on their ability to predict individual performance, based solely on past performance.

OK, so what about the law of averages -- how or where does it fit in?

It doesn't

Let me explain. The law of averages tells us that a coin flip is a dead-on 50-50 shot. Every single time. Even if you flip "heads" 50 times in a row, the odds on flip #51 remain 50-50. Same goes for the roulette wheel or the daily lottery.

So what are the odds of Marina making her next trey? Based on her very limited past performance (college only, HS doesn't count), it's about 50--60%. A smart bettor would bet against her nailing hat shot, for two reasons: (1) insufficient body of work, making current stats unreliable; and lack of precedent -- nobody has ever sustained that level of 3-point shooting accuracy before.

Let's go to a very current example, tonight's game, Golden State vs. Boston Celtics. GS has won 23 in a row and are, I believe, favored by about 2-3 points. Some bettors will take Boston and the points and a few prognosticators will even predict a Celtics victory. Why? Well, the Celtics only lost to the Warriors by four points (2X) last year, GS has just traveled 5,000+ miles and, perhaps most important, Avery Bradley is a tough defender who just might limit Stephen Curry's production; n.b., no mention of law of averages.

OK, 'Yarders,, your call -- Marina or Celtics vs. Warriors. Or your next coin flip.

Ah yes the old coin flip issue - but the law of averages does come into play, not on each individual action, but on every sequence of actions. Each flip of a coin is 50/50, and the law of averages predicts that if you are going to flip a coin 100 times, the most likely result will be 50 heads and 50 tails - but with each flip of the coin you make, the law of averages has changed the end result based on whatever the results have been for the previous flips.

This is relevant to shooting percentages because we can look at a season and say that the most prolific and accurate three point shooters will take about 250 shots (the sequence) and will make about 125 of them. If x games into a season a shooter has in fact taken 30 shots and made 20, that becomes the past sequence and it has altered the future sequence not at all but has increased the probability for total made shots by 5 and the likely final shooting percentage by only 2%.
In fact Marina is currently shooting 10-19 - taking only 2.11 threes per game and making them at 52.6% - her 7-8 over the last two games is at this point an aberrational stretch that has only increased her likely season ending total by 0.5 threes (50% of 19 = 9.5) if she is in fact one of the most accurate three point shooters ever.

 

[Kibitzer]

Ah yes the old coin flip issue - but the law of averages does come into play, not on each individual action, but on every sequence of actions. Each flip of a coin is 50/50, and the law of averages predicts that if you are going to flip a coin 100 times, the most likely result will be 50 heads and 50 tails - but with each flip of the coin you make, the law of averages has changed the end result based on whatever the results have been for the previous flips.

This is relevant to shooting percentages because we can look at a season and say that the most prolific and accurate three point shooters will take about 250 shots (the sequence) and will make about 125 of them. If x games into a season a shooter has in fact taken 30 shots and made 20, that becomes the past sequence and it has altered the future sequence not at all but has increased the probability for total made shots by 5 and the likely final shooting percentage by only 2%.
In fact Marina is currently shooting 10-19 - taking only 2.11 threes per game and making them at 52.6% - her 7-8 over the last two games is at this point an aberrational stretch that has only increased her likely season ending total by 0.5 threes (50% of 19 = 9.5) if she is in fact one of the most accurate three point shooters ever.

Nice try, but even as you poo-poo the coin flip argument that I made, you do so by mentioning a "sequence of actions" thus reverting to my argument about reliance on prior performance to predict future performance.

Then, when discussing Marina, as soon as you use the word "probability," you inadvertently lapse into reliance on past performance to predict how Marina will do as the season rolls on.

Jeez, this is fun!

 

[UcMiami]

Nice try, but even as you poo-poo the coin flip argument that I made, you do so by mentioning a "sequence of actions" thus reverting to my argument about reliance on prior performance to predict future performance.

Then, when discussing Marina, as soon as you use the word "probability," you inadvertently lapse into reliance on past performance to predict how Marina will do as the season rolls on.

Jeez, this is fun!

Misread or maybe poorly expressed:
Coin flips: 50/50 - law of averages says 100 coin flips will most likely result in 50 heads, 50 tails.
First ten flips in a sequence of 100 comes in at 7-3, law of averages says the next 90 will be 45/45 and the end result of the 100 will be 52/48 - the percentage never changes, but the result of the initially planned sequence of 100 has changed based on the result achieved in the first 10 flips.

Same for shooting - though shooting does not by its nature create a fixed probability like a coin flip, you can still define a working probability based on the experience of thousands of previous players taking thousand of competitive shots.
Good 3 point shooters are also a 50/50 proposition. And their results in any game may be random because the sample size is too small, but you can take a season of shots (250) and apply the 50/50 probability to the whole sequence.

250 shots - 125 makes
but if a player takes their first 50 shots and makes 40 - it hasn't altered the probability for the next 200 shots which should be still be 50/50 or 100 makes.

What has altered based on past performance is the end result of the season - 250 shots - 140 makes. Because the first 50 shots ended in a different result than predicted, just like the first 10 flips of the coin.

Agree - fun way to waste the time before tip-off!

 

[HoopsFan21]

View attachment 11393
"Connecticut Huskies guard Moriah Jefferson (4) is off to the races after stealing a pass intended for Notre Dame Fighting Irish guard Marina Mabrey" [Brad Horrigan / Hartford Courant ]

"Marina Mabrey scored just one time in the second half, on a drive to the basket. Mabrey joined the club of guards who've gotten the "Mo-Jeff" treatment..." [Mechelle Voepel, espnW.com]

Look at mighty Mo go!

 

[Kibitzer]

UcMiami - We and all other Boneyarders are spared further discussion by the probability of a tip-off in about ten minutes.

 

[DaddyChoc]

UcMiami - We and all other Boneyarders are spared further discussion by the probability of a tip-off in about ten minutes.

did you just flip UcMiami off

 

[Kibitzer]

did you just flip UcMiami off

 

[DaddyChoc]

 

[diggerfoot]

As usual your posts are excellent - spot on. Were you a coach at any time?

As a freshman at UConn I tried out for the JV, back when they had one. I made it through the first cut but not the second. Apparently they were not in the market for a slow, 5'10" guy with little hops (28"), small hands and a mediocre shooter. However, I was usually the first one to finish or last one standing for any endurance drill, probably the only reason I made it until the second cut. That was the farthest I went with basketball, besides coaching some little kids. That, plus having slept at a Holiday Inn, are my main qualifications as a basketball analyst.

Btw, I enjoy your analyses as well.

 

[hoophuskee]

As a freshman at UConn I tried out for the JV, back when they had one. I made it through the first cut but not the second. Apparently they were not in the market for a slow, 5'10" guy with little hops (28"), small hands and a mediocre shooter. However, I was usually the first one to finish or last one standing for any endurance drill, probably the only reason I made it until the second cut. That was the farthest I went with basketball, besides coaching some little kids. That, plus having slept at a Holiday Inn, are my main qualifications as a basketball analyst.

Btw, I enjoy your analyses as well.

It must be The Holiday Inn!!!!

And thank you!