Not believeing in statistics is like not believing in climate change.
Oh really it's that simple? No one I've seen has said the stats are lying. However, people are saying that stats do not tell 100% of the story.
Not believeing in statistics is like not believing in climate change.
Do you invest in stock purely on what a chart tells you? If so, this way of thinking makes sense.
I've never seen a forum so divided on a subject like this one is with statistics and the eye test. Wait, yes I have...
For the record, I don't know how anyone could look at the stats and say "Nah, they are wrong - this team is pretty poor defensively."
Oh really it's that simple? No one I've seen has said the stats are lying. However, people are saying that stats do not tell 100% of the story.
For myself, I don't think they look bad on D. It's the offense that's cringe-inducing.
Perhaps their ineptitude on offense is coloring perceptions of their D.
Oh really it's that simple? No one I've seen has said the stats are lying. However, people are saying that stats do not tell 100% of the story.
We just won a game against a quality opponent where we made one basket in the first fourteen minutes of the second half and only four in the entire half. One is free to totally ignore whether our D contributed to that and rely on fairy dust instead to tell a story, but rest assured that isn't where the smart money is.
Some stats are misleading and in need of context. Other stats - like the ones cited in the OP - are literally a reflection of what happened, and arguing them is about as worthwhile as arguing time ("I'm 34, but that doesn't tell the whole story"...actually, it does, it means you're 34).
Using the schedule as a crutch to explain away these numbers is mostly bogus. No, they're not in the ACC or Big 12, but they've still played five top 50 offenses and held three of them to 40% or less from the field.
Michigan, the #11 offense in the country, shot 32% against us. Some of it was luck, sure, but there's also an infrastructure in place defensively that prohibits us from ever allowing opponents too far north of 40% (I wrote about this in detail before the season).
37% is a startlingly low number (last years Kentucky team, which was considered among the best of all-time defensively, was around that number). Obviously, it's probably not that low if we're in a power conference - but we got a look at what that was like in the OOC schedule, and it isn't as if we got lit up (if you take the aggregate of the Michigan, Syracuse, Gonzaga, Maryland, Ohio State, Texas, and Georgetown games, I bet we're under 4o%).
There's still some ambiguity regarding how good the defense is, but there's no doubt that it has been among the best in America thus far.
But what was most interesting to see was that on average, teams score 5 more points per game WITH BRIMAH than without Brimah in the game. But in terms of FG%, UConn with-Brimah holds their opponents to a FG% 1.5% lower than without Brimah. This could be to a tougher OOC schedule than our in conference? Who knows.
Whether we ARE better without him you can debate, but there is no questions on D that we've PLAYED better without him. Maybe everyone else has stepped up their effort because they are not relying on him, and maybe, with Phil now back to old Phil, the help he gives on the pick and roll at the top of the key is just as important as the shot blocks that AB gives you in the paint.
Not believeing in statistics is like not believing in climate change. You can at the margins make cogent arguments, but eventually the science of means and standard deviations makes one look stupid if they're not willing to accept it.
You're kidding right? I know I'm not stupid and don't believe in all the stats and why would I? CCSU, Scared Heart and UMass Lowell are up there. I mean c'mon
CTBasketball said:I responded to this in another thread but am going to repost. I am ready for the barrage of hate I'm about to get. I tend to agree with @polycom if you think the 2015-2016 Huskies are a better defensive team than the 05'-06' team then I'm sorry. I would really enjoy to hear a response that explains why statistics are true when it says that the 15'-16' squad is better defensively than the 05'-06' team. @BLUEDOGHOUSE I didn't get to watch the video - its blocked from my work computer. I will when I get home.
Whether we ARE better without him you can debate, but there is no questions on D that we've PLAYED better without him. Maybe everyone else has stepped up their effort because they are not relying on him, and maybe, with Phil now back to old Phil, the help he gives on the pick and roll at the top of the key is just as important as the shot blocks that AB gives you in the paint.
t.
BAM . Excellent.
Phil is an excellent team defense player. I mean REALLY good. We see the missed bunnies and lack of rebounds and think, meh, but man that kid is seldom, if ever, lost on the defensive end. Helps at the right time, hedges properly, always in good position. If you could merge him and AB you would have easily the best defender in the country. Their strengths are totally opposite each other.
Whether we ARE better without him you can debate, but there is no questions on D that we've PLAYED better without him. Maybe everyone else has stepped up their effort because they are not relying on him, and maybe, with Phil now back to old Phil, the help he gives on the pick and roll at the top of the key is just as important as the shot blocks that AB gives you in the paint.
Not believeing in statistics is like not believing in climate change. You can at the margins make cogent arguments, but eventually the science of means and standard deviations makes one look stupid if they're not willing to accept it.