Le Moyne Dolphins Post Game Thread

[AllHusky]

Missed game, digesting comments. Interpreting those comments, sounds like a matter of not IF, but WHEN all of these folks have assimilated effectively into the lineup.

Ross, Ball and Stewart are sophs, and will have sporadic reversions to Frosh like behaviors. By mid season, should start to exhibit Junior like behaviors.

Reed seems to be progressing by the game, and Mahaney sounds like the "strugglingest" who may or may not have quite the upside of the aforementioned 4, but who knows, he's got an awful lot on his plate.

Liam is seamless.

I'm betting on Nowell contributing NOW, and many of you feel the same for Abraham.

Said it in another post, late February Huskies won't bear any resemblance to the November Huskies.

 

[NickDanger]

There is no law of averages per se but there is regression toward the mean. So extremely poor shooting in the first half should improve in the second half. Of course, there are many more factors in play which could erase the effect of regression toward the mean.

Nope: there is also no law or force that magically pulls things back towards the mean. Regression to the mean is merely a tautology: If the numbers don’t move back towards the mean, the mean moves to keep with the numbers!
When Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in 1919, that was more than double what anyone had hit before in a season. Do you think the next year a magical force called “regression to the mean“ pulled his numbers back to the previous mean?

 

[NickDanger]

Nope: there is also no law or force that magically pulls things back towards the mean. Regression to the mean is merely a tautology: If the numbers don’t move back towards the mean, the mean moves to keep with the numbers!
When Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in 1919, that was more than double what anyone had hit before in a season. Do you think the next year a magical force called “regression to the mean“ pulled his numbers back to the previous mean?

And by the way, sports writers get this completely wrong all the time, and use “regression to the mean“ as if it was some magical force influencing actual performance

 

[bendm]

Your point about Diarra is accurate. He has outplayed Aidan. But his handle has been very, very lose.

yes it has. diarra is averaging 2 TOs per game while Mahaney is only averaging .3 it's the only thing i can imagine is preventing hurley from moving diarra into the starting lineup. having said that i think Diarra makes up for the TOs with all the other things he brings.

 

[DogMania]

And by the way, sports writers get this completely wrong all the time, and use “regression to the mean“ as if it was some magical force influencing actual performance

I feel like I'm in a statistics class, which I had back in the day and didn't do very well if my memory serves me. I think my mind is in a regression to the mean as I approach the twilight of my existence.

 

[The Yakk]

Nope: there is also no law or force that magically pulls things back towards the mean. Regression to the mean is merely a tautology: If the numbers don’t move back towards the mean, the mean moves to keep with the numbers!
When Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in 1919, that was more than double what anyone had hit before in a season. Do you think the next year a magical force called “regression to the mean“ pulled his numbers back to the previous mean?

And by the way, sports writers get this completely wrong all the time, and use “regression to the mean“ as if it was some magical force influencing actual performance

Very well said.

And by the way--for you gamblers--this myth about some kind of "regression to the mean" correcting force is one of the concepts that the sports books use to take your money. They know it doesn't exist, but half-smart second-half bettors will keep playing it until they are broke.

 

[cwh20]

Nope: there is also no law or force that magically pulls things back towards the mean. Regression to the mean is merely a tautology: If the numbers don’t move back towards the mean, the mean moves to keep with the numbers!
When Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in 1919, that was more than double what anyone had hit before in a season. Do you think the next year a magical force called “regression to the mean“ pulled his numbers back to the previous mean?

So Kalkbrenner might actually make 90%+ from the field for the year? Wow! Back to the mean is used when seeing extreme results either way. I’m betting Kalk’s shooting won’t stay that hot just as UConn’s 3 point percentage was bound to go up from 0% early. That’s not saying Kalk will end up at the league’s average for centers either. Kalkbrenner may very well hit a very high percentage of his shots this year but it’s not going to be 90%.

 

[The Yakk]

So Kalkbrenner might actually make 90%+ from the field for the year? Wow! Back to the mean is used when seeing extreme results either way. I’m betting Kalk’s shooting won’t stay that hot just as UConn’s 3 point percentage was bound to go up from 0% early. That’s not saying Kalk will end up at the league’s average for centers either. Kalkbrenner may very well hit a very high percentage of his shots this year but it’s not going to be 90%.

LOL if you are going to use sarcasm in a post, maybe make sure you have an actual point.

I'll try to help, even though I might be wasting keystrokes.

No, Nick Danger is certainly not saying that Kalk is going to shoot 90% for the rest of the year. Here is what he is saying:

The best predictor of what Kalk will shoot for the rest of the year is his lifetime shooting percentage. The 90% he shot in the first two games has no impact on that prediction at all, except that it raises his lifetime shooting percentage a little bit.

The "regression to the mean" bettor believes that in the coming games, Kalk's shooting percentage will be well below his lifetime average, in order to offset the streak of good luck he had his first two games.

Your silly comment says that either Kalk will shoot 90% for the rest of his life, or the "regression to the mean" believers are correct. There is no other possibility. That is, of course, complete nonsense.

 

[auror]

Your point about Diarra is accurate. He has outplayed Aidan. But his handle has been very, very lose. You gotta start him, but I would give Nowell more minutes. The kid is the natural PG for this offense, because he does what Diarra does, but shoots better.

Nowell was pretty atrocious on defense in his minutes yesterday. Fouled a 3 point shooter because he was late because he didn't realize he needed to switch, lost another shooter. On offense, he played half his time next to Diarra, not even running point. He's still learning the system, not ready to for a lot more minutes considering we have better players that need more minutes (Ross, Stewart, etc.) and Mahaney is trying to get up to speed, too. I'd rather see a 4 wing + center lineup than Nowell getting more minutes.

 

[Storrs South]

 

[NickDanger]

So Kalkbrenner might actually make 90%+ from the field for the year? Wow! Back to the mean is used when seeing extreme results either way. I’m betting Kalk’s shooting won’t stay that hot just as UConn’s 3 point percentage was bound to go up from 0% early. That’s not saying Kalk will end up at the league’s average for centers either. Kalkbrenner may very well hit a very high percentage of his shots this year but it’s not going to be 90%.

“So Kalkbrenner might actually make 90%+ from the field for the year?”
He might, but if he doesn’t, it’s not because of “regression to the mean“, but because he doesn’t shoot that well.
Do you know how many home runs Babe Ruth hit the year after he hit 29?

 

[The Yakk]

“So Kalkbrenner might actually make 90%+ from the field for the year?”
He might, but if he doesn’t, it’s not because of “regression to the mean“, but because he doesn’t shoot that well.
Do you know how many home runs Babe Ruth hit the year after he hit 29?

29½?

 

[UC1995]

Three games of 90 plus, even against this level of competition, is pretty impressive this early in the year.

We haven't even hit our stride yet. This team is going to be deep and exhausting to the teams we play.

 

[RuffRuff]

Every time I see Abraham in the limited minutes he gets he always look good to me. Is it because it's not enough minutes to go around that he doesn't play more or is it something else?

Circling back on this one - buying stock on Isiah. Reason he’s not seeing more minutes now is likely a tenure thing times simply familiarizing with the system. He is not walking in the door with the type of offensive arsenal that a Liam is, as wasn’t really his game at the HS level. But so much to like about him. He’s a fluid and controlled mega athlete, with a gorgeous jumper. One year in the background will likely serve him well as the staff coaches him up and diversifies his offensive game. I’d expect him to be the next candidate for the big sophomore leap. He’s the kind of kid I can see really catching the eyes of scouts over his sophomore and junior year as he looks to check a lot of the boxes of today’s NBA profile.

 

[RuffRuff]

Nowell was pretty atrocious on defense in his minutes yesterday. Fouled a 3 point shooter because he was late because he didn't realize he needed to switch, lost another shooter. On offense, he played half his time next to Diarra, not even running point. He's still learning the system, not ready to for a lot more minutes considering we have better players that need more minutes (Ross, Stewart, etc.) and Mahaney is trying to get up to speed, too. I'd rather see a 4 wing + center lineup than Nowell getting more minutes.

Noticed the same - lost his assignment multiple times defensively.

I’d agree that he’s also better served learning in year 1, while acclimating another small guard in AM.

If Ross/Solo can show a strong enough handle to run the top, would rather see them develop the “big” lineup in preparation for March. You hear Hurley often appreciating the advantages of big guards, especially defensively as part of creating mismatches. It’s how he recruited this last cycle. Without a Steph and a Clingan have to find those mismatches in other ways. Part of me thinks he also might be anticipating a Duke showdown in the East regional come March, and wants to be ready for their enormous starting 5.

AM still feels like more of an experiment right now than a sure thing. The backup to him not getting there is the big lineup vs relying on a freshman at PG. You have to be pretty special to play massive minutes as a freshman PG in this program right now.

 

[Waquoit]

I'm thrilled by our start. All of the returnees are better than they were last year and all of the newcomers can play. I think McNeeley is an absolute unicorn. The guys are focused and playing team ball. They'll be a machine by March. I'm settled in and ready to enjoy the ride.

 

[DogMania]

Nowell was pretty atrocious on defense in his minutes yesterday. Fouled a 3 point shooter because he was late because he didn't realize he needed to switch, lost another shooter. On offense, he played half his time next to Diarra, not even running point. He's still learning the system, not ready to for a lot more minutes considering we have better players that need more minutes (Ross, Stewart, etc.) and Mahaney is trying to get up to speed, too. I'd rather see a 4 wing + center lineup than Nowell getting more minutes.

I noticed that as well. His D was noticeably bad.

Now all we're seeing are small samples of play at the end of games. I did find it interesting that Dan Hurley put Nowell in with 5 to 7 minutes left in the game and well before Abraham saw the floor. And I felt bad that Singare sat by the scorers table and never got into the game. I would have liked to see Dan Hurley call a TO to get him in the game even if for a couple minutes, but I digress.

It's clear that Hurley is trying to use just about every minute to develop the 9 players he believes give them the best chance of winning. As much as I'd like to see the 3 noted above get a few meaningful minutes, I understand what he's doing. The slow starts show improvement is needed. They are all showing the capability to make plays and will get their chance, though it might not be till next season.

There's a lot of games before March, so things could change. They'll get their opportunity to contribute, though it might not be till next season. Ross waited his turn, worked hard and is now earning PT. The positive is all the players know Hurley is loyal to his players, is committed to developing them and will reward them for their hard work.

 

[mlpavela]

Mahaney is going to be really good, it's just going to take some time.

It's frustrating since, like Tarris, he has to unlearn some bad habits from his previous stop. He did miss Samson 3x on what should have been lob dunks and all three times he opted for a more difficult shot and missed all 3x.

That's OK though he will get it. Just needs to continue to understand where to shot and when to pass. Once it clicks, he is going to be a real weapon on offense and it's a given he is in lab being coached up on defense. Remember Cam was a turnstile the first two months he was here. It doesn't happen overnight.

Coach Hurley's take in the presser seemed to be more about Mahaney needing to get taller to find Samson, and I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

 

[superjohn]

Coach Hurley's take in the presser seemed to be more about Mahaney needing to get taller to find Samson, and I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation.

His comments were interesting. It sounds to me like we'll be seeing a move with Ross or Stewart entering the starting lineup for Mahaney if Mahaney can't show he can do the things Hurley wants him to do as a starter.

 

[gars44]

Very well said.

And by the way--for you gamblers--this myth about some kind of "regression to the mean" correcting force is one of the concepts that the sports books use to take your money. They know it doesn't exist, but half-smart second-half bettors will keep playing it until they are broke.

Yes, I know this to be true. On another topic, are the NY Giants regressing back to the mean? Or do they just keep sinking? When is SMCI going to start regressing to the mean? Hope it happens!

 

[caw]

Gotta be honest, I'll take Reed's 12 pts and 10 reb all day.

If you could only guarantee one, I'd take the blocks and steals because I think 1-4 is going to provide a ton of offense and can cover the rebounding if needed. Luckily UConn has both.

 

[NickDanger]

29½?

50
Then 54

 

[NickDanger]

LOL if you are going to use sarcasm in a post, maybe make sure you have an actual point.

I'll try to help, even though I might be wasting keystrokes.

No, Nick Danger is certainly not saying that Kalk is going to shoot 90% for the rest of the year. Here is what he is saying:

The best predictor of what Kalk will shoot for the rest of the year is his lifetime shooting percentage. The 90% he shot in the first two games has no impact on that prediction at all, except that it raises his lifetime shooting percentage a little bit.

The "regression to the mean" bettor believes that in the coming games, Kalk's shooting percentage will be well below his lifetime average, in order to offset the streak of good luck he had his first two games.

Your silly comment says that either Kalk will shoot 90% for the rest of his life, or the "regression to the mean" believers are correct. There is no other possibility. That is, of course, complete nonsense.

“The best predictor of what Kalk will shoot for the rest of the year is his lifetime shooting percentage. The 90% he shot in the first two games has no impact on that prediction at all,”
Excellent

 

[NickDanger]

LOL if you are going to use sarcasm in a post, maybe make sure you have an actual point.

I'll try to help, even though I might be wasting keystrokes.

No, Nick Danger is certainly not saying that Kalk is going to shoot 90% for the rest of the year. Here is what he is saying:

The best predictor of what Kalk will shoot for the rest of the year is his lifetime shooting percentage. The 90% he shot in the first two games has no impact on that prediction at all, except that it raises his lifetime shooting percentage a little bit.

The "regression to the mean" bettor believes that in the coming games, Kalk's shooting percentage will be well below his lifetime average, in order to offset the streak of good luck he had his first two games.

Your silly comment says that either Kalk will shoot 90% for the rest of his life, or the "regression to the mean" believers are correct. There is no other possibility. That is, of course, complete nonsense.

Ironically, Kalkbrenner shot 100% from the field on Wednesday!

 

[QuickDraw]

Hurley being Hurley, lol.

 

[freescooter]

Yes, I know this to be true. On another topic, are the NY Giants regressing back to the mean? Or do they just keep sinking? When is SMCI going to start regressing to the mean? Hope it happens!

No, they are regressing to the JETS.

 

[Palatine]

Nope: there is also no law or force that magically pulls things back towards the mean. Regression to the mean is merely a tautology: If the numbers don’t move back towards the mean, the mean moves to keep with the numbers!
When Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in 1919, that was more than double what anyone had hit before in a season. Do you think the next year a magical force called “regression to the mean“ pulled his numbers back to the previous mean?

That is a bad interpretation. Regression toward the mean is a tendency not a immutable law. There are many exceptions to regression toward the mean. Sometimes a 6-7 man and a 6-4 inch woman will have a seven foot child. But more often they will produce a child shorter than either. Sometimes a curve buster like Babe Ruth comes along. But more often, a player will hit a number of home runs closer to the league average.

Regression toward the mean is considered a statistical fact, a fundamental concept in statistics. It is NOT the same as "the law of averages" which is simply conventional wisdom.

Therefore one can reasonably predict that a UConn basketball team going 0-10 from the three point line in the first half will perform better from the arc in the second half due to regression toward the mean.

 

[nomar]

I’m trying my best to be patient on Mahainey and I trust this coaching staff. So far? Yikes. I am not even sure what his strength(s) are supposed to be.

I finally got around to watching the game (I DVRd the replay) and Mahaney was one of the guys I focused on, based on this and several other comments in this thread.

The fact is he's off to a very slow start, BUT there were 2 threes that were 90% of the way down, plus two bunnies that were in and out, plus one blown bunny. If the ball goes in on half of those, it's a different story. He also made a very crisp pass for a 3 (to McNeeley I think) and played under control. He also was working hard to stay with his man. And he almost had a pick 6 but couldn't keep his foot off the line.

He clearly isn't integrated in our offense like Cam managed to be right away, and he probably never will be that kind of facilitator. But if he's making shots like we know he can make them, he'll fit in fine.

A few other random comments:

*I know Alex was complaining about the crowd size but Fanta & Spanarkel noted a couple times it was a good crowd. Seemed pretty loud for a win over a cupcake.

*The coaching staff seems to be working wonders with Reed. We'll see how he holds up against better competition but so far so good. Samson is Samson; Reed will be the variable.

*Not only did Stewart have 5 assists in 15 minutes, he had at least 2 other passes that either led to a foul or a makeable miss. He was killing it in the middle of the zone. As a team we can really pass the ball until a good scoring opportunity is there. Fanta asked half-facetiously if maybe we're too unselfish, and there were times it looked like we were running a passing drill. But there's no pounding the ball into the ground (a la Gaffney) and I trust the staff and players to improve their execution of the sets.

 

[Samoo]

“So Kalkbrenner might actually make 90%+ from the field for the year?”
He might, but if he doesn’t, it’s not because of “regression to the mean“, but because he doesn’t shoot that well.
Do you know how many home runs Babe Ruth hit the year after he hit 29?

People confuse "regression to the mean" with " if a player/team that has a long-term consistently good level play has a bad stretch, they are apt to return to that good level if there has been no intervening issue that causes the bad stretch".

 

[Waquoit]

How come nobody talks about regression to the mean when a good shooter is in a slump? My favorite non-regression to the mean example is Neils Giffey. No way a career 34% shooter is going to shoot almost 50% the entire season. Yeah, he is. Including the title game.