Advanced stats heading into the tournament | The Boneyard

Advanced stats heading into the tournament

W

Woof

Joined
Apr 27, 2025
Messages
208
Reaction Score
639
UConn: BPM=15.3, WS/40=0.318
UCLA: BPM=14.8, WS/40=0.271
Texas: BPM=13.4, WS/40=0.267
SC: BPM=13.7, WS/40=0.262
LSU: BPM=12.8, WS/40=0.286

Last year (incl. tournament):
UConn: BPM=14.1, WS/40=0.282
UCLA: BPM=11.3, WS/40=0.211
Texas: BPM=11.9, WS/40=0.231
SC: BPM=13.1, WS/40=0.223
USC: BPM=11.6, WS/40=0.217

Previous notable years:
2018 UConn: BPM=14.5, WS=0.307
2018 ND: BPM=10.6, WS=0.193
2017 UConn: BPM=14.1, WS=0.289
2017 MSU: BPM=10.0, WS=0.203
2017 SC: BPM=10.9, WS=0.221
2016 UConn: BPM=15.8, WS=0.342
2016 Baylor: BPM=10.3, WS/40=0.245
2015 UConn: BPM=15.6, WS=0.340
2015 ND: BPM=10.8, WS/40=0.218
2014 UConn: BPM=14.3, WS=0.306
2013 UConn: BPM=14.8, WS=0.308

I will add more later. But there are a couple of things to note.

In 2017 and 2018 we had the best team, by a lot, and lost in the final four both times. In 2017 we had a good team, overall, but there were flaws to be exploited. We lacked size and were outrebounded 33-26. We were also weak at the point and lacked depth. Turnovers were 10-17 and we couldn't guard their guards. In 2018 we were flat out robbed by the refs. This year we have a complete team AND depth. But if the refs don't want to see us win, the other teams are close enough that they can make it happen more easily and less obviously than in 2018.

2015 and 2016 are actual examples of "no one being close to UConn". Although the refs let ND keep it close in 2015 by letting the game turn into a rugby match.

While people argue thay there is more parity in women's basketball, it is only how much closer the 2-5 teams are to #1. But that has come at the expense of the next tier of teams who lose their best players to the top teams due to NIL and the portal.
 
Box Plus/Minus (BPM) is a
Basketball-Reference.comadvanced basketball metric that estimates a player’s total contribution to the team (in points above league average per 100 possessions) using only box score statistics. It calculates a rate statistic, where 0.0 is league average, +5.0 is elite, and -2.0 is considered replacement level
 
Do you just add the starting 5 for BPM and average the starting 5 for win share?
 
Last edited:
Win Shares (WS) is a
Basketball-Reference.comadvanced statistic that estimates a player’s total contribution to team success (wins) by allocating a portion of team wins based on offensive (OWS) and defensive (DWS) performance
 
.-.
They are both advanced stats that attempt to combine all available stats into a single number that represents a team's strength or an individual player's contribution.
 
Several questions:
  1. If Win Shares (WS) is a statistic for an individual player, then what does the team WS statistic mean? Is it influenced by a team's average margin of victory, so that a team that routinely wins by 40 points will have a higher WS than a team (with the same record) that usually wins by single digits?
  2. From the definition of BPM, it sounds as if it is clearly affected by the team's average margin of victory. Is that correct?
  3. If margin of victory affects (arguably pollutes) both of these stats, doesn't the fact that UConn plays many more games against weak Big East opponents than other NC contenders play in their conference schedule mean that UConn stats aren't comparable to those of teams in the B1G or SEC?
 
JoePgh said:
Several questions:
  1. If Win Shares (WS) is a statistic for an individual player, then what does the team WS statistic mean? Is it influenced by a team's average margin of victory, so that a team that routinely wins by 40 points will have a higher WS than a team (with the same record) that usually wins by single digits?
  2. From the definition of BPM, it sounds as if it is clearly affected by the team's average margin of victory. Is that correct?
  3. If margin of victory affects (arguably pollutes) both of these stats, doesn't the fact that UConn plays many more games against weak Big East opponents than other NC contenders play in their conference schedule mean that UConn stats aren't comparable to those of teams in the B1G or SEC?
Expand ...
(1) No. &2 But it is better with a higher MOV winning team.
(2) Yes.
(3) Yes and No. &1

&1 Geno has a very even minutes distribution this year, perhaps better than any other of his prior rosters. But it was a journey — a “metamorphosis”.
  • In the front-ended OOC schedule (ranked 1), it was clear that the only rotations really winning games were what I call winning time rotations (Sarah + Azzi + 3 of the top 8);
  • all the other rotations were only barely winning games, which meant that rotation players not named Sarah or Azzi needed some work;
  • the Big East schedule was convenient, probably instrumental, for roster development that by BET time, the Top 8/9/10 have improved as “plug and play” “basketball players”;
  • which is to say that maximizing Margin of Victory was far from the primary concern; for starters, it was secondary to optimizing Sarah’s and Azzi’s time and employ a fast-paced-mix-match expedited roster development;
  • in short, Margin of Victory could have been (a lot) worse.
&2 Win Shares (all players) approximates (a multiple of) the number of Wins.
 
Last edited:
If I'm reading the stats right, this UConn team is most aligned with the 2015 UConn. Now that's a great team of years past to be compared to!
 
On BPM, below. On Win Shares, here.

BPM: Is there a simple explanation for BPM? : r/NBAanalytics

IMG_0277.jpeg

 
NycUcWbbFan said:
  • which is to say that maximizing Margin of Victory was far from the primary concern; for starters, it was secondary to optimizing Sarah’s and Azzi’s time and employ a fast-paced-mix-match expedited roster development;
Expand ...
I didn't mean to imply that Geno's substitution patterns (or any of his coaching decisions) were for the purpose of "maximizing the margin of victory".

My point was simply that the fact that UConn's BPM and WS stats are higher than those of other NC contenders may reflect the fact that UConn's overall schedule (two thirds of which was in the Big East) is quite a bit weaker than that of UCLA, South Carolina, Texas, and even LSU (which had a pitiful non-conference strength of schedule but a tough in-conference schedule like everyone else in the SEC).

So other contenders' BPM and WS might have been higher than UConn's if they played in the Big East, and UConn's scores would have been lower if UConn had played in the B1G or SEC.

UConn's superior metrics in these stats, in other words, prove very little about whether UConn is better than other top contenders. We will have to wait for the games to be played to see if that is the case.
 
.-.
JoePgh said:
I didn't mean to imply that Geno's substitution patterns (or any of his coaching decisions) were for the purpose of "maximizing the margin of victory".

My point was simply that the fact that UConn's BPM and WS stats are higher than those of other NC contenders may reflect the fact that UConn's overall schedule (two thirds of which was in the Big East) is quite a bit weaker than that of UCLA, South Carolina, Texas, and even LSU (which had a pitiful non-conference strength of schedule but a tough in-conference schedule like everyone else in the SEC).

So other contenders' BPM and WS might have been higher than UConn's if they played in the Big East, and UConn's scores would have been lower if UConn had played in the B1G or SEC.

UConn's superior metrics in these stats, in other words, prove very little about whether UConn is better than other top contenders. We will have to wait for the games to be played to see if that is the case.
Expand ...
Let’s put it this way:
  • Sarah’s and Azzi’s minutes and USG% would have been a lot higher if UConn played in the SEC, so much so that their credentials for the NPOY are more readily evident.
  • Maybe the other P4 powerhouse teams wouldn’t be playing their stars that many minutes or USG% if they were in the Big East. Or maybe not.
Admittedly, this year, by happenstance, UConn’s OOC schedule was not as strong as it could have been.
  • But it is not too shabby either whereas there are NET incentives for P4 schools to have cupcake OOC schedules.
  • In the end, the chasm in overall schedules is a tad exaggerated (see WAB and OppNET below).
IMG_0279.jpeg
 
Wonder if the winningest basketball coach in NCAA basketball history knows or cares about what BPM or WS will tell him about a player. Care to bet?
 
WiseWillie said:
Wonder if the winningest basketball coach in NCAA basketball history knows or cares about what BPM or WS will tell him about a player. Care to bet?
Expand ...
This is just a guess, but my guess is that Geno could not cite the win shares for single one of his players.

However, if you asked him to rank his players in terms of win shares, his gut reaction would be either identical to or close to the numerical ranking.

These many coaches who could not do this anywhere near as well, and would find it helpful to have an assistant coach research the numbers and share it with them.

I'm not pretending that Geno is the only one who could do this. My guess is that Vic and Dawn could do it about as well.
 
WiseWillie said:
Wonder if the winningest basketball coach in NCAA basketball history knows or cares about what BPM or WS will tell him about a player. Care to bet?
Expand ...
Sure. How will we find out?

I am not sure why it matters though. Should we not discuss it if Geno doesn't care?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,595
Messages
4,529,405
Members
10,404
Latest member
RussellHall


Top Bottom