ND vrs UNC

[DobbsRover2]

The article paid homage to Natalie's 24 points. What does UConn do
in Championship game to hold her to 8 or 12?

Don't let her get the ball in low, box her out, and keep her from making a lot of trips to the FT line.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Well, you can pull out any stat to justify something, but the "lot more points" is just your own perception, especially when you don't want to provide the stats for what your saying. Going by the old possession measure tends to give a break to teams if they don't rebound that well in a game.

1. The fact that UConn gave up a "lot more points" per possession vs Louisville is a fact, not a perception. How can a stat be a "perception"? Notre Dame gave up approximately 0.87 points per possession vs UNC. UConn gave up approximately 0.94 points per possession (64 points on 68 possessions).
2. It's easy enough to look at a box score and calculate it yourself if you think I made up the numbers.
3. How does this "give a break to teams if they don't rebound that well in a game"? If anything it is the reverse. Each defensive possession only ends when a team gets the ball back, so if a team is weak in defensive rebounding they will actually be penalized. It is a fair penalty, however, since defensive rebounding is an important part of overall defense.

 

[VAMike23]

The majority of Diamond's shots are pull up jumpers and off the dribble 3s.

How effective has Diamond been in transition?

I remember seeing her in one of the HS all-star games, or perhaps it was a video of one of her own Norcross games (can't remember for sure), and her speed on the break was something to see. Just so smooth, yet so fast, and such great physical gifts for finishing.

Does she score many of her points this way? If not, I'm wondering why she doesn't....

 

[msf22b]

Don't let her get the ball in low, box her out, and keep her from making a lot of trips to the FT line.

She's most dangerous on pick and roll.
She moves very quickly to an easy shooting position.
A difficult play to guard
Doing it far better than last year.
One of the keys to the Irish success.

 

[VAMike23]

Haiku for Achonwa

'Ace' facilitates.
Dangerous in the high post;
a savvy senior.

 

[DobbsRover2]

1. The fact that UConn gave up a "lot more points" per possession vs Louisville is a fact, not a perception. How can a stat be a "perception"? Notre Dame gave up approximately 0.87 points per possession vs UNC. UConn gave up approximately 0.94 points per possession (64 points on 68 possessions).
2. It's easy enough to look at a box score and calculate it yourself if you think I made up the numbers.
3. How does this "give a break to teams if they don't rebound that well in a game"? If anything it is the reverse. Each defensive possession only ends when a team gets the ball back, so if a team is weak in defensive rebounding they will actually be penalized. It is a fair penalty, however, since defensive rebounding is an important part of overall defense.

Sure, it is possible to prove that 75 points is less than 64 and even that "UConn gave up a lot more points than that against Louisville and about the same against Duke (61)." UNC took 6 more shots than Louisville so of course that means that ND was far more impressive than UConn in holding the Heels to 11 more points. And that UNC shot better against ND than Louisville did against UConn must somehow show that they had a better defensive performance because maybe with the higher percentage UNC should have scored even more points? Baffled.

As George H once referred to about voodoo economics, it's twisted stats like these that just make me shake my head about mathematical literacy. "Gee the Racers got 100 possessions against us and scored 90 points while shooting 50%, but our defense is so much better than yours because the Jackems scored 60 points in their 60 possessions while shooting 35%."

However you want to sum it up, do so. Think I'll stick with good old tried and true scoring defense and FG%, in which the Huskies do pretty well even if they apparently in someone's fantasy are giving up "a lot more points" than Notre Dame. And the fact that ND is giving up 1.0 points per shot this season versus UConn's 0.77 is just another thing that I'll file away as of no consequence in the world of voodoo statistics where UConn is just giving up a lot more points.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Sure, it is possible to prove that 75 points is less than 64 and even that "UConn gave up a lot more points than that against Louisville and about the same against Duke (61)." UNC took 6 more shots than Louisville so of course that means that ND was far more impressive than UConn in holding the Heels to 11 more points. And that UNC shot better against ND than Louisville did against UConn must somehow show that they had a better defensive performance because maybe with the higher percentage UNC should have scored even more points? Baffled.

As George H once referred to about voodoo economics, it's twisted stats like these that just make me shake my head about mathematical literacy. "Gee the Racers got 100 possessions against us and scored 90 points while shooting 50%, but our defense is so much better than yours because the Jackems scored 60 points in their 60 possessions while shooting 35%."

However you want to sum it up, do so. Think I'll stick with good old tried and true scoring defense and FG%, in which the Huskies do pretty well even if they apparently in someone's fantasy are giving up "a lot more points" than Notre Dame. And the fact that ND is giving up 1.0 points per shot this season versus UConn's 0.77 is just another thing that I'll file away as of no consequence in the world of voodoo statistics where UConn is just giving up a lot more points.

Dobbs, I'm not sure if you don't understand Stamfordhusky's argument or if you are intentionally being obtuse, but his reasoning seems very clear to me and your metric seems flawed. Using points scored per FG attempted ignores FT attempts, which could certainly skew the measure. UNC shot 14/20 on FT's, so the 14 points greatly increases your metric, but does that make sense? Seems a better (and more simplistic) measure would be FG%, but that ignores other factors that are important defensively, such as steals or other turnovers (which your metric also ignores). Points per possession integrates the all the different aspects of a defense (FG%, FT's, 3FG%, steals/turnovers, and rebounding), which is why it is favored by sabermetricians. Perhaps the following tidbit of information will make this fact easier to swallow: UConn leads the nation in fewest points per possession defense, and it's not even close.

 

[John Glass]

How effective has Diamond been in transition?

I remember seeing her in one of the HS all-star games, or perhaps it was a video of one of her own Norcross games (can't remember for sure), and her speed on the break was something to see. Just so smooth, yet so fast, and such great physical gifts for finishing.

Does she score many of her points this way? If not, I'm wondering why she doesn't....

in the 4 or 5 UNC games I have seen this year their fast break has been good, the problem is their half court offense. Last night UNC tried to isolate Diamond, and Notre Dame sometimes counter with a 1-1-3 defense. The defense shut down DD

 

[DobbsRover2]

Dobbs, I'm not sure if you don't understand Stamfordhusky's argument or if you are intentionally being obtuse, but his reasoning seems very clear to me and your metric seems flawed. Using points scored per FG attempted ignores FT attempts, which could certainly skew the measure. UNC shot 14/20 on FT's, so the 14 points greatly increases your metric, but does that make sense? Seems a better (and more simplistic) measure would be FG%, but that ignores other factors that are important defensively, such as steals or other turnovers (which your metric also ignores). Points per possession integrates the all the different aspects of a defense (FG%, FT's, 3FG%, steals/turnovers, and rebounding), which is why it is favored by sabermetricians. Perhaps the following tidbit of information will make this fact easier to swallow: UConn leads the nation in fewest points per possession defense, and it's not even close.

Sorry Choke, but you are just dredging up more examples of voodoo mathematics to make Husky fans think 75 points are less (a lot less apparently) than 64 and a better defensive showing, and that a team that gives another team more possessions and more shots while allowing them to shoot better is somehow a better defensive team. As noted, when Oregon had umpteen possessions and put a relatively high 68 points against UConn, it was balanced by the fact that the points were scored off 88 shots in an uptempo game when the team was held to 31%. That UConn's performance against Louisville was a lot more points (what does "a lot" mean anyway? 10? 15?) worse than ND's against UNC is simply an example of voodooism gone astray.

There are no defensive plaudits to be won from allowing a team to simply get more possessions and shoot 39%, a percentage that's not bad for ND but is certainly not one that Geno would be happy about. As to the fact that UConn is the leader in points per possessions, that's obviously not a surprise since they lead in FG% and scoring defense, and have twice as many blocks and far more steals than ND. Those are stats that mean something. The fact maybe you forced an opponent to play a more uptempo game and that they scored 78 points in 80 possessions rather than 60 points in 60 possessions does not make you a better defensive team. Teams like UConn that stifle the opponent and make them use up their clock are not worse defensive teams for doing that.

When it comes down to comparing players, performance per minute or per possession obviously make clear sense, as a player who racks up 10 ppg in 10 mpg is doing better than a player getting 12 ppg in 20 mpg, assuming the same shooting percentages for that one performance marker outside of all the other factors such as rebounding etc.

I know there are also those who worship the APBRmetrics for team defensive stats too, perhaps thinking that uptempo teams that give up 75 ppg and have a 3.0 scoring margin should be allowed to be thought of as a better defensive team than one that gives up 55 ppg and has a 2.5 scoring margin. The APBRmetrics also have a FTA element that basically gives you a better defensive efficiency rating if your opponent has a bad day at the line. Not sure that UConn played better defense if Odyssey Sims clanks 6 of 10 FTAs than if she nails them all. But APRBmetrics says they had a better defensive efficiency maybe for giving the shooters the hairy eyeball while they were trying to focus.

So here's a tale of the two APBR rated teams in different games in the same situation. There's a minute left in the game and the score is tied 70-70.

Team A's opponent brings up the ball and hits 2-pter, than Team A goes and makes a 3-pter, and then the opponent misses a shot to end the game and Team A celebrates a win. Defensively, the winning Team A faced 2 possessions and gave up 2 points on 2 FGAs. Pretty much a 1.00 defensive efficiency for their final minute.

Team B's opponent brings the ball up but turns the ball over, but immediately snatches it right back but then has the ball stolen right back before immediately grabbing the ball again and scoring a layup. Team B than gets the ball and hits a three, but the same TO sequence as before is repeated at the other end with Team B finally getting a layup at the buzzer to win the game 74-73. Defensively, the losing team B faced 6 possessions and got 4 TOs with 2 FGAs while giving up 4 points. Pretty much a snappy 0.67 defensive efficiency for their final minute.

So clearly Team B had the better defensive efficiency with the total of 6 FGA\TO credits versus 4 points given up than did Team A with the 2 FGA credits and 2 points given up. You see, Team B faced more possessions and had a better defensive efficiency, and I guess that's what really counts, not FG% or scoring defense or points per minute or whether you won the game.

So Choke, I am glad you are happy with your possession stats and that ND was a lot more defensively efficient in their UNC game. I'll stick with real numbers like the normal defensive stats while understanding that other fans think that possessions are 9/10s of what matters.

 

[Icebear]

Dobbs that read horribly confusing.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Sorry Choke, but you are just dredging up more examples of voodoo mathematics to make Husky fans think 75 points are less (a lot less apparently) than 64 and a better defensive showing, and that a team that gives another team more possessions and more shots while allowing them to shoot better is somehow a better defensive team. As noted, when Oregon had umpteen possessions and put a relatively high 68 points against UConn, it was balanced by the fact that the points were scored off 88 shots in an uptempo game when the team was held to 31%. That UConn's performance against Louisville was a lot more points (what does "a lot" mean anyway? 10? 15?) worse than ND's against UNC is simply an example of voodooism gone astray.

There are no defensive plaudits to be won from allowing a team to simply get more possessions and shoot 39%, a percentage that's not bad for ND but is certainly not one that Geno would be happy about. As to the fact that UConn is the leader in points per possessions, that's obviously not a surprise since they lead in FG% and scoring defense, and have twice as many blocks and far more steals than ND. Those are stats that mean something. The fact maybe you forced an opponent to play a more uptempo game and that they scored 78 points in 80 possessions rather than 60 points in 60 possessions does not make you a better defensive team. Teams like UConn that stifle the opponent and make them use up their clock are not worse defensive teams for doing that.

When it comes down to comparing players, performance per minute or per possession obviously make clear sense, as a player who racks up 10 ppg in 10 mpg is doing better than a player getting 12 ppg in 20 mpg, assuming the same shooting percentages for that one performance marker outside of all the other factors such as rebounding etc.

I know there are also those who worship the APBRmetrics for team defensive stats too, perhaps thinking that uptempo teams that give up 75 ppg and have a 3.0 scoring margin should be allowed to be thought of as a better defensive team than one that gives up 55 ppg and has a 2.5 scoring margin. The APBRmetrics also have a FTA element that basically gives you a better defensive efficiency rating if your opponent has a bad day at the line. Not sure that UConn played better defense if Odyssey Sims clanks 6 of 10 FTAs than if she nails them all. But APRBmetrics says they had a better defensive efficiency maybe for giving the shooters the hairy eyeball while they were trying to focus.

So here's a tale of the two APBR rated teams in different games in the same situation. There's a minute left in the game and the score is tied 70-70.

Team A's opponent brings up the ball and hits 2-pter, than Team A goes and makes a 3-pter, and then the opponent misses a shot to end the game and Team A celebrates a win. Defensively, the winning Team A faced 2 possessions and gave up 2 points on 2 FGAs. Pretty much a 1.00 defensive efficiency for their final minute.

Team B's opponent brings the ball up but turns the ball over, but immediately snatches it right back but then has the ball stolen right back before immediately grabbing the ball again and scoring a layup. Team B than gets the ball and hits a three, but the same TO sequence as before is repeated at the other end with Team B finally getting a layup at the buzzer to win the game 74-73. Defensively, the losing team B faced 6 possessions and got 4 TOs with 2 FGAs while giving up 4 points. Pretty much a snappy 0.67 defensive efficiency for their final minute.

So clearly Team B had the better defensive efficiency with the total of 6 FGA\TO credits versus 4 points given up than did Team A with the 2 FGA credits and 2 points given up. You see, Team B faced more possessions and had a better defensive efficiency, and I guess that's what really counts, not FG% or scoring defense or points per minute or whether you won the game.

So Choke, I am glad you are happy with your possession stats and that ND was a lot more defensively efficient in their UNC game. I'll stick with real numbers like the normal defensive stats while understanding that other fans think that possessions are 9/10s of what matters.

Dobbs, I now believe that you do not understand the concept of points per possession, so I'll explain it in more detail to assuage your fears that I am dabbling in voodoo basketball statistics. But I first want to point out that I never said anything about "a lot more points" nor did I ever mention Notre Dame or their game against UNC. Stamfordhusky made these arguments (and he's probably correct), but I only spoke up for points per possession (PPP), so I will clarify that argument.

Again, the advantage of points per possession (PPP) stats is that they incorporate all aspects of defensive ability: FG% against, 3FG% against, FT's, turnovers forced, and defensive rebounds. And of course offensive PPP would incorporate FG%, 3FG%, FT's, turnovers, and offensive rebounding. The 3 defensive statistics you champion either do not account for all these aspects (i.e., FG% against and points scored per FG attempt) or fail to account for pace (points allowed per game).

When a team is playing defense, they can succeed by stealing the ball or otherwise forcing a turnover. In this case, the opponent never gets a shot, so your favored metrics (points per shot and FG% defense) do not consider it a successful defensive possession (or an unsuccessful one, for that matter), but the turnover would be measured by PPP (points per possession). Imagine a situation where a pressing team forces a turnover 20% of the time, but when an opponent successfully breaks the press, they score at a slightly higher percentage (40% FG) than if the defensive team hadn't pressed (35%). In a game with 100 possessions, the pressing defensive team would force turnovers 20 times and allow shots 80 times. At 40%FG against, they would yield 32 baskets in 80 attempts (64 points). The non-pressing defense would allow 100 shots at 35%FG, which would be 70 points. In this case, the better defense is the one that allowed the higher FG% against because it was offset by all the turnovers they forced. Despite giving up 6 fewer points in the game, the pressing team allowed a higher FG% against and allowed a higher points per shot attempt (64/80 = .8 whereas 70/100 = .7).

Your trivial examples of the last minute of the game are silly because at short intervals, all stats fail, as stats are a slave to the law of large numbers. The whole basis of PPP is that over a whole game, the number of possessions for each team is approximately equal. If UConn had 120 possessions in the Oregon game, then Oregon probably had between 118-122 possessions, because whenever an offensive possession ends, an offensive possession for the other team begins (except when a team gets an offensive rebound off a missed FT and in the odd case of flagrant fouls). PPP is really a fancy way to recreate margin of victory (when you combine offensive PPP, defensive PPP, and pace).

What about FT's? Well if a team is fouled and gets FT's, then that counts as an offensive possession. If you give up 2 points at the FT line because he fouled a team, that means your defense was unsuccessful that trip. But your FG% defense stat does not account for FT's and your points per FG attempt overcounts them. But PPP counts them as the scoreboard counts them (which is why it is better).

Why is pace important to consider? Or restated, is Harry Parretta one of the best defensive minds in the game? Is Paul Westhead one of the best offensive minds in the game? You cannot just use points allowed per game (or points scored per game) as a meaningful metric of defensive (or offensive) prowess without considering pace. If Parretta slows down the pace of the game and thus allows fewer possessions for both him and his opponent, it doesn't mean that he's a defensive mastermind just because his teams rank in the top 20 in points allowed per game. Similarly, Westhead's Oregon team leads WCBB in scoring, but that's primarily due to the fast pace he dictates. To determine how extraordinary each coach is, we must consider pace, which reveals that neither squad is particularly noteworthy. Parretta has the fourth slowest pace in WCBB at 64.2 possessions per game, while Oregon has the fastest pace at 91.8 possessions per game. Oregon is still quite good offensively, as they ranked 33rd in the nation at 1.01 points per possession, but they are far behind national leader UConn, at a hefty 1.18 offensive PPP. (The Irish are second at 1.14.) Parretta doesn't fare as well, as his squad is 70th in the nation in defensive PPP. Again UConn is tops in DPPP at .66, with the next team .76 (a tie between Gonzaga James Madison, and Hampton). In case you are curious, Notre Dame is 16th in the nation at .81 DPPP.

The last aspect of good defense is rebounding. If the other team misses twice, but gets the offensive boards each time, and then scores on the third attempt, that is considered a single possession, and so the defensive team yielded 2 points that possession even though they scored only .67 points per FG attempt and only shot 33%. That's just another way that FG% defense and points per FG attempt do a poor job of measure the strength of a defense. This makes sense of course, because if the offensive team gets the offensive rebound, you really haven't stopped the threat yet, but rather only delayed it slightly.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I'm sure that if you are a big proponent of the points per possession stats and you believe stamfordhusky is correct about his assessment that ND gave up a lot less points for its 75 versus UNC than UConn did for its 64 against Louisville, that you would be happy to clue us in to how many p-p-pos stat works out to. Personally I have a hard time accepting that +11 equals maybe, I don't know, what's a lot? Say -11? But if you can prove that to be the case, I'd be happy to know how deficient the Huskies were in the L-ville game.

Often noted that proponents of certain systems such as the RPI tend to throw out charges of "triviality" whenever you point out certain issues with their beloved systems such as schedule-factoring problems or other stat issues. Again, the p-p-pos credits a team for being more "defensively efficient" if the other team suddenly shoots 40% on their FTs than 75%. Perhaps there's some logic there, but I can't think of any. And as noted in the "trivial" example, the p-p-pos does not necessarily reward the number that shows up on the scoreboard but rather in that case how many possessions you got. As in baseball, "We outhit them 7 to 1 but lost the game 1-0," defensive efficiency is another tool to use in looking at teams, but like any tool it has its limits of effectiveness.

There is also a question of what is the definition of good defense. Under the p-p-pos system, if UConn plays a low-TO team like Nova and gives up 40 points while holding them to 30% shooting for 50 possessions then they will have a decent rating. But of course the Huskies get a better rating if they play a much more uptempo team like Oregon that throws the ball away a lot if they shoot 35% but are held to 75 points on 90 possessions. Yeah, I guess the defense somehow was much better for allowing the other team to play its run-and-gun-and-turn-it-over style, but excuse me if I still like the old defensive stats and don't want to worship the p-p-pos system that supposedly wraps everything into one perfect package.

 

[Fightin Choke]

I'm sure that if you are a big proponent of the points per possession stats and you believe stamfordhusky is correct about his assessment that ND gave up a lot less points for its 75 versus UNC than UConn did for its 64 against Louisville, that you would be happy to clue us in to how many p-p-pos stat works out to. Personally I have a hard time accepting that +11 equals maybe, I don't know, what's a lot? Say -11? But if you can prove that to be the case, I'd be happy to know how deficient the Huskies were in the L-ville game.

I really don't understand why you continue to harp on the ND/UNC game. The only time I have mentioned the game is to tell you that the points per possession argument stands on its own and thus does not require me to investigate the details of the game. But if you wish, I'll analyze that game later today and provide you with the details.

Often noted that proponents of certain systems such as the RPI tend to throw out charges of "triviality" whenever you point out certain issues with their beloved systems such as schedule-factoring problems or other stat issues. Again, the p-p-pos credits a team for being more "defensively efficient" if the other team suddenly shoots 40% on their FTs than 75%. Perhaps there's some logic there, but I can't think of any. And as noted in the "trivial" example, the p-p-pos does not necessarily reward the number that shows up on the scoreboard but rather in that case how many possessions you got. As in baseball, "We outhit them 7 to 1 but lost the game 1-0," defensive efficiency is another tool to use in looking at teams, but like any tool it has its limits of effectiveness.

I am not a proponent of the RPI, but am VERY much a proponent of possession-based statistics. The two are not at all related. The only reason I referred to your examples as trivial is because PPP stats are meaningless over a single minute of a game. The whole point is that over the course of a game, both teams have approximately the same number of possessions. It's as if you are trying to figure out the fastest marathon runner by examining the speeds of runners in their last mile. You have to look at the whole race or the comparison is useless. If you flip a coin four times and it comes out heads 3 out of 4 times, does that mean the coin is biased? O f course not. What about if you flipped it 400 hundred times and it came out heads 300 times? You cannot judge a stat designed to measure entire game performance over a span of 60 seconds.

As for your gripe that PPP is affected by an opponents FT%, sure it is!! And it's usually bad defense to foul a good foul shooter and may be advantageous to foul a poor FT shooter if they have an easy layup. Why is that so hard to swallow? And of your favored 3 metrics, 2 of them (points per FG attempt, points allowed per game) also "penalize" the defensive team for an opponents FT%. (Your third favored metric, points allowed per game, is not affected by FT at all.)

There is also a question of what is the definition of good defense. Under the p-p-pos system, if UConn plays a low-TO team like Nova and gives up 40 points while holding them to 30% shooting for 50 possessions then they will have a decent rating. But of course the Huskies get a better rating if they play a much more uptempo team like Oregon that throws the ball away a lot if they shoot 35% but are held to 75 points on 90 possessions. Yeah, I guess the defense somehow was much better for allowing the other team to play its run-and-gun-and-turn-it-over style, but excuse me if I still like the old defensive stats and don't want to worship the p-p-pos system that supposedly wraps everything into one perfect package.

The reason you like the Oregon game defense better than the 'Nova game defense is because you are only basing it on an opponent's FG%. But forcing the other team into a turnover without ever hoisting up a shot is an attribute of an effective defense. Again the PPP method is directly related to the final score, so I'm sure how you can find such fault with it. It's just a fancy version of analyzing MOV that separates the contributions of offense and defense to the scoring margin. What's not to like? As for your preference in viewing a UConn game vs. a 'Nova-like team vs. UConn vs. an Oregon-like team, that is just your personal feeling, and is not related to the stats generated in each type of game. By the way, in your example, UConn allows 40points/50 poss = .8 PPP vs. 'Nova and 75/90 = .83 vs. Oregon, so UConn's defense WAS better vs. 'Nova.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I really don't understand why you continue to harp on the ND/UNC game. The only time I have mentioned the game is to tell you that the points per possession argument stands on its own and thus does not require me to investigate the details of the game. But if you wish, I'll analyze that game later today and provide you with the details.



I am not a proponent of the RPI, but am VERY much a proponent of possession-based statistics. The two are not at all related. The only reason I referred to your examples as trivial is because PPP stats are meaningless over a single minute of a game. The whole point is that over the course of a game, both teams have approximately the same number of possessions. It's as if you are trying to figure out the fastest marathon runner by examining the speeds of runners in their last mile. You have to look at the whole race or the comparison is useless. If you flip a coin four times and it comes out heads 3 out of 4 times, does that mean the coin is biased? O f course not. What about if you flipped it 400 hundred times and it came out heads 300 times? You cannot judge a stat designed to measure entire game performance over a span of 60 seconds.

As for your gripe that PPP is affected by an opponents FT%, sure it is!! And it's usually bad defense to foul a good foul shooter and may be advantageous to foul a poor FT shooter if they have an easy layup. Why is that so hard to swallow? And of your favored 3 metrics, 2 of them (points per FG attempt, points allowed per game) also "penalize" the defensive team for an opponents FT%. (Your third favored metric, points allowed per game, is not affected by FT at all.)



The reason you like the Oregon game defense better than the 'Nova game defense is because you are only basing it on an opponent's FG%. But forcing the other team into a turnover without ever hoisting up a shot is an attribute of an effective defense. Again the PPP method is directly related to the final score, so I'm sure how you can find such fault with it. It's just a fancy version of analyzing MOV that separates the contributions of offense and defense to the scoring margin. What's not to like? As for your preference in viewing a UConn game vs. a 'Nova-like team vs. UConn vs. an Oregon-like team, that is just your personal feeling, and is not related to the stats generated in each type of game. By the way, in your example, UConn allows 40points/50 poss = .8 PPP vs. 'Nova and 75/90 = .83 vs. Oregon, so UConn's defense WAS better vs. 'Nova.

Please don't be obtuse. This whole discussion centered around a poster stating that by the cherished p-p-pos formula that UConn had given up "a lot more points" than ND, which I then answered and which caused you to state your p-p-pos theories with the statement about stamfordhusky "(and he's probably correct)". I'm not sure why you have such a problem providing the number that you feel is "probably correct" so that Husky fans can gauge for themselves whether ND's 75 really was a lot less than UConn's 64. I take it you just don't want to provide that stat for some reason, and maybe you have a lot of reasons for doing so.

As noted, I'm happy enough to focus on the easily understandable defensive stats that are commonly used. If a team holds a team to 36% shooting and another team holds their opponent to 39%, it's just my dumb prejudice that the first team did better. If a team holds another to 40 points or 1 ppm for a game, I'm still thinking for some strange reason that they did better defensively than the team that gives up 80 points or 2 ppm. Those who are possessed by the possession stats may feel differently at times. But thanks for clearing up my bonehead numbers in the p-p-pos examples which are a little too obscure for me. At least I know now that if UConn can force Oregon to have 95 possessions while scoring 75 points they have outdone a 40 point effort on 50 possessions by Nova. I'm relieved.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Please don't be obtuse. This whole discussion centered around a poster stating that by the cherished p-p-pos formula that UConn had given up "a lot more points" than ND, which I then answered and which caused you to state your p-p-pos theories with the statement about stamfordhusky "(and he's probably correct)". I'm not sure why you have such a problem providing the number that you feel is "probably correct" so that Husky fans can gauge for themselves whether ND's 75 really was a lot less than UConn's 64. I take it you just don't want to provide that stat for some reason, and maybe you have a lot of reasons for doing so.

As noted, I'm happy enough to focus on the easily understandable defensive stats that are commonly used. If a team holds a team to 36% shooting and another team holds their opponent to 39%, it's just my dumb prejudice that the first team did better. If a team holds another to 40 points or 1 ppm for a game, I'm still thinking for some strange reason that they did better defensively than the team that gives up 80 points or 2 ppm. Those who are possessed by the possession stats may feel differently at times. But thanks for clearing up my bonehead numbers in the p-p-pos examples which are a little too obscure for me. At least I know now that if UConn can force Oregon to have 95 possessions while scoring 75 points they have outdone a 40 point effort on 50 possessions by Nova. I'm relieved.

In the Louisville game, both UConn and Louisville had 68 possessions. Louisville scored 64 points in 68 possessions, which is .95 PPP.

In the UNC game, ND had 86 possessions and UNC had 85 possessions, so the pace was 25% faster than the UConn/Louisville game. UNC scored 75 points on 85 possessions, which is .88 PPP. So Stamfordhusky was correct, in that Notre Dame was more efficient on defense than UConn was.

On the season, UNC is 27th in the nation in Offensive PPP at 1.02, so Notre Dame kept them .14 below their seasonal average.

On the season, Louisville scores 1.06 PPP, so UConn kept them .11 below their season average.

 

[alexrgct]

Haiku for Achonwa 'Ace' facilitates. Dangerous in the high post; a savvy senior.

A thorn in the side To make matters all the worse She's Canadian

 

[pinotbear]

Canadian thorn in the side? Better get a Nurse!

 

[Fightin Choke]

In the game today vs. Rutgers, both UConn and Rutgers had 68 possessions. Rutgers scored 35 points so UConn's defensive PPP (points per possession) was an amazing .51, significantly better than their NCAA leading .66 defensive PPP. On offense, UConn's PPP was 1.06, significantly below their NCAA leading 1.18, but still better than all but 9 Division I teams average for the year.

For some more perspective, Rutgers offense typically scores .94 PPP (114th) and their defense yields .79 PPP (9th) on the season. They usually have 73 possessions/game (180th fastest pace).

UConn offense scores 1.18 PPP while the Huskies yield .66 PPP. Both values lead the Division I. UConn averages 72 possessions/game (222nd fastest pace).

There are 349 teams in WCBB Division 1.

 

[DobbsRover2]

In the game today vs. Rutgers, both UConn and Rutgers had 68 possessions. Rutgers scored 35 points so UConn's defensive PPP (points per possession) was an amazing .51, significantly better than their NCAA leading .66 defensive PPP. On offense, UConn's PPP was 1.06, significantly below their NCAA leading 1.18, but still better than all but 9 Division I teams average for the year.

For some more perspective, Rutgers offense typically scores .94 PPP (114th) and their defense yields .79 PPP (9th) on the season. They usually have 73 possessions/game (180th fastest pace).

UConn offense scores 1.18 PPP while the Huskies yield .66 PPP. Both values lead the Division I. UConn averages 72 possessions/game (222nd fastest pace).

There are 349 teams in WCBB Division 1.

Thank you Choke for answering the question by not answering the question. As you said, stamfordhusky was probably correct in stating that ND scored a lot less points in the UNC game. The answer to what "a lot less points" is turns out to be 4. I will remember that for any future discussions about what constitutes a blow-out, because apparently 4 is the new 37.

And yes, you were probably correct before in saying that the 4 points were probably a lot of points. But since Husky fans tend to think that an 11 point win over Baylor is a nail-biter, it's a little hard to wrap my mind around the new definition of 4.

Also note that in regular points allowed and FG%, UConn also did quite well as usual against Rutgers, so we are quite fine with relying on them. Good the p-p-pos also worked out well.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Thank you Choke for answering the question by not answering the question. As you said, stamfordhusky was probably correct in stating that ND scored a lot less points in the UNC game. The answer to what "a lot less points" is turns out to be 4. I will remember that for any future discussions about what constitutes a blow-out, because apparently 4 is the new 37.

And yes, you were probably correct before in saying that the 4 points were probably a lot of points. But since Husky fans tend to think that an 11 point win over Baylor is a nail-biter, it's a little hard to wrap my mind around the new definition of 4.

Also note that in regular points allowed and FG%, UConn also did quite well as usual against Rutgers, so we are quite fine with relying on them. Good the p-p-pos also worked out well.

I'm not sure what you want me to do.

Stamfordhusky argued that Notre Dame's defense in the UNC game was actually better statistically than UConn's defense in the Louisville game.

You disagreed, stating that PPP is a voodoo metric and you argued that FG% against, points yielded/game, and points/FG attempt were better.

I never mentioned the ND/UNC game, but defended the use of possession-based statistics.

You then tried to transfer my argument, saying that I therefore believe that Louisville scored "a lot more points" than UNC.

I said that I am not arguing that point, as I hadn't analyzed the statistics of those games, but Stamfordhusky was probably correct. I then made a very detailed argument about the basis of possession-based statistics, explaining to you why that method is superior to your three preferred metrics.

You then claimed that I was being obtuse by not answering your question.

I then analyzed the two games and reported the results, showing that Notre Dame's defense on UNC was actually better than UConn's defense on Louisville based on possession based statistics.

You then said that I still did not answer the question.

So what exactly IS the question? When did I mention a blowout? Why do you keep changing the argument? Is this the way you typically argue? Do you believe that you win the argument if the other person finally gives up trying to explain their viewpoint? I consider an argument a success when the two parties understand each other's argument. It is a rare person that can suddenly see that the views they hold dear are actually less accurate or useful than the views against which they are arguing. Usually, a wise, thoughtful person will ruminate after an argument, considering the opposing view. As long as they understood the opposing view, they may start to find it more appealing and may eventually incorporate it into their worldview. Or not. But the key is to explain your viewpoint clearly. And you're a lot more persuasive if you can explain your perspective without ridiculing or demeaning your 'opponent' or your opponent's point of view.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I'm just asking you to actually state what happened instead of giving us your long obfuscatory answers. Again, the statement that I took exception to was "UConn gave up a lot more points than that against Louisville" which you said you probably agreed with, but you refused to state how many points it amounted to. Turns out after all your blather that it amounts to 4 points. That's all I wanted to know. I now have an APBRmetric authority about where a blow-out style win probably starts.

Again, we all have our favored statistics for judging a team in a game or during a season. You have yours and I have mine. I know in baseball that favored statistic tends to the OPS for judging the power and efficiency of a team's offense. A lot of the experts cite it as the supreme measure of the effectiveness of a team's bats, though personally I still adhere to the old runs scored measure for a season. Last year in the NL, Colorado had by far the best of that offensive bats efficiency with an OPS average of .741, but the Rockies still scored 77 less runs than the Cardinals last year who had only a .733 OPS.

You do not need to prove to me that UConn had a far worse p-p-pos score than did ND in the two games. I can see from what you said that it must be so. But again, no matter how much you love your metrics, I will respectfully say that they can mean relatively squat either in a game or over the course of a season. And I simply will stick to citing the stats that are readily available for teams from the NCAA and other sports sites.