Analytics

[sedz]

Are there any analytics that relate to substitutions? How much better or worse does a player do after having a blow or having been taken out of the game for messing up? If a player is hot but looking exhausted is it better to leave him in the game or give him a blow? I get the impression that most coaches are flying by the seat of their pants re these kinds of decisions.

The NBA has substitutions down to a science. The starters or best 5 will stagger their bench minutes around the middle of each half so they are on on the floor as a unit to open and close each half. So you'll see a couple starters sit for the last 4 minutes of the first quarter, then another couple starters will sit for the opening 4 minutes of the second quarter. This keeps the guys fresh for the highest leverage portions of the game and keeps at least a couple of your best players out there at all times. For example, Jayson Tatum almost always sits the last 4 minutes of the first and third quarters, while Jaylen Brown sits the first 4 minutes of the second and fourth quarters. And then there's the controversial practice of sitting healthy players for full games.

But that's the pros, where guys aren't being pulled for mental mistakes or because they are overmatched and someone on the bench can do better. NBA games aren't for teaching. Professionals don't make the roster if that's a consistent problem. College is different because these guys are often being forced to use skills that aren't fully developed. The NBA is full of low usage 3 and D type role players who would be uncomfortable with the ball in their hands, but in college they have to create. There aren't many college players who are competent in every facet of the game, so your high usage guys are going to make mistakes or get exposed. It's hard to stick to a pre-planned substitution pattern because of that. So yeah, I think most coaches fly by the seat of their pants because they have to.

That was kind of a long winded way to say that I'm not aware of analytics for substitutions in college, at least based on fatigue or momentum. Kenpom and EvanMiya do rate individual lineups though, and EvanMiya rates 2, 3, and 4 man units. Aziz and Dan was our best 2 man unit, probably because they're the best rebounders. The best 4 man unit was Aziz, Dan, Simas, and Jizzle, who are hopefully all coming back next year. Maybe we should try an NBA style substitituion pattern and keep those guys on the floor to open and close each half and play through mistakes.

[DesertFog]

Are there any analytics that relate to substitutions? How much better or worse does a player do after having a blow or having been taken out of the game for messing up? If a player is hot but looking exhausted is it better to leave him in the game or give him a blow? I get the impression that most coaches are flying by the seat of their pants re these kinds of decisions.

[sedz]

sedz Interesting ^^^ Who knows what this offseason will bring, but is there anything forward-looking you can project for the current guys (at least looking at certain numbers for guys and where they have improved, could improve, etc.)?

Good question. The only reliable areas of improvement to expect from players as they progress through their careers are turnover rate and foul rate. Players usually commit fewer turnovers and fouls as they gain experience. Everything else is unpredictable. Shooting percentages, assists, defensive rebounds, and free throw rate can fluctuate wildly up or down year to year.

Our young regulars Jizzle and Skillings already have low turnover and foul rates, so they will have to improve in other areas. Obviously shooting would be the ideal area to improve, but it's not that simple in college basketball. We think of Kilpatrick as a gym rat, but his best three point shooting season was as a freshman at 38%. By his junior year he was down to 31% before bouncing back a bit to 35% as a senior. SK's improvement came from getting to the free throw line more and converting at a higher rate. Cumberland's effective field goal percentage dropped every year, but he improved his assist rate each season. Deonta's offensive numbers peaked as a sophomore but he became a better defender.

Basically, shooting isn't something than can be fixed with practice time. The one exception is Reed, who has bad form. That's something the coaching staff can work to correct. We saw that happen with Jaquon Parker, who shot 15% as sophomore. The staff had him do shooting drills over a broomstick to keep his feet lined up, and he then shot 37% as a junior and 40% as a senior.

I think Skillings and Jizzle can become much better passers. Simas, Day Day, and Jamille need to cut down their turnovers. Jizzle and Day Day need to be better at the rim, either finishing or drawing fouls - they both barely convert 50% at the rim and have very low free throw rates. These things can all be worked on with offseason drills.

[GoBearcats31]

sedz Interesting ^^^ Who knows what this offseason will bring, but is there anything forward-looking you can project for the current guys (at least looking at certain numbers for guys and where they have improved, could improve, etc.)?

[sedz]

As the season ends I always like to look back at how our players compare to Bearcats from the recent past, using box plus minus as a bias free sorting tool. Here are the best career players since 2008. Had to go down to defensive second team to find a new entrant.

First Team:
Gary Clark 9.8
Sean Kilpatrick 8.4
Jacob Evans 8.3
Jarron Cumberland 6.6
Deonta Vaughn 5.3

Second Team:
Tre Scott 5.0
Cash Wright 4.7
Justin Jackson 4.7
Troy Caupain 4.6
Lance Stephenson 4.6

Third Team:
Octavious Ellis 4.6
Rashad Bishop 4.3
Yancy Gates 3.9
Landers Nolley 3.8
Dion Dixon 3.6

All Defense First Team:
Justin Jackson 5.5
Gary Clark 4.4
Jacob Evans 3.8
Titus Rubles 3.6
Jamual Warren 3.4

All Defense Second Team:
Octavious Ellis 3.4
Day Day Thomas 3.3
Tre Scott 3.0
Abdul Ado 2.9
Cash Wright 2.6

[sedz]

well I remember the tight defenses, boxing out and the physicality in the lane. Hard to quantify that. Doesn't matter what you have learned or where you are from, if a defender is in your face, stats go out the window. That is all I have been saying.

This defense is not tighter or even more physical than today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sw3mJAHmq0

[sedz]

Actual footage of sedz watching basketball :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb1x_tRg2mc

Haha!

My hero:
https://twitter.com/jgohlke34/status...71128600723654

[leo from jersey]

I love Oscar, but I think he romanticizes his own generation, as we all tend to do. When Oscar won MVP in 1964, shooting was 43%. It was a different game. Scoring, shooting percentages and assists are higher, and turnovers and fouls are lower now than they've ever been. But every generation builds on the last, and today's game wouldn't be where it is now if not for pioneers like Wilt, Oscar, and Jordan. Today's players and coaches can take advantage of accumulated knowledge of the past 70 years, plus an ever expanding pool of international players.

well I remember the tight defenses, boxing out and the physicality in the lane. Hard to quantify that. Doesn't matter what you have learned or where you are from, if a defender is in your face, stats go out the window. That is all I have been saying.

[GoBearcats31]

Actual footage of sedz watching basketball :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb1x_tRg2mc

[sedz]

I love Oscar, but I think he romanticizes his own generation, as we all tend to do. When Oscar won MVP in 1964, shooting was 43%. It was a different game. Scoring, shooting percentages and assists are higher, and turnovers and fouls are lower now than they've ever been. But every generation builds on the last, and today's game wouldn't be where it is now if not for pioneers like Wilt, Oscar, and Jordan. Today's players and coaches can take advantage of accumulated knowledge of the past 70 years, plus an ever expanding pool of international players.

[leo from jersey]

Yeah, I mentioned a few days ago that the generational debates miss that. Jordan and his predecessors played in the midrange era. That can't be compared to today's game, the tactics and skillsets have completely changed. When Jordan won his last title in 1998, teams were scoring 1.05 points per possession and shooting under 48% effective field goals. Now scoring is up to 1.16 points per possession on 55% effective field goals. In the 70s scoring was under a point per possession, and going back to the 50s shooting was under 40%. The game gets more efficient over time, and players from past eras can't be faulted for that.

I said 20 years ago MJ's era was over . Scoring is down in the NBA of late.

I remember listen to Oscar and Wilt talking about how things had changed in Jordan's day let alone today/ Oscar asked Wilt what would have happened if Michael's skill for driving the lane had happened against him, Russell, Unseld and the rest. Wilt said they would have had to pick him up and carry him to the bench. Oscar said they played defense. Perhaps that is why scoring went up. I believe players skills have gone down despite their athleticism going up.

The only way discussion have gotten off the rails is dependence in figures and forgetting the complexities of the game itself.

[sedz]

I remember in the early 2000 folks were talking about how few were taking and hitting the mid-range. The 3-point shot has turned the mid-range into a lost art. A player's ego doesn't hurt if he misses a 3 and is exalted when he makes one. That is far from the case with the mid-range. This is where confidence enters the game big time.

Yeah, I mentioned a few days ago that the generational debates miss that. Jordan and his predecessors played in the midrange era. That can't be compared to today's game, the tactics and skillsets have completely changed. When Jordan won his last title in 1998, teams were scoring 1.05 points per possession and shooting under 48% effective field goals. Now scoring is up to 1.16 points per possession on 55% effective field goals. In the 70s scoring was under a point per possession, and going back to the 50s shooting was under 40%. The game gets more efficient over time, and players from past eras can't be faulted for that.

[sedz]

Lee-
See middle of this article for the basics of the reasoning. https://www.nba.com/news/3-point-era-nba-75 As you are hinting at, the math doesn't always work out if we force someone who will never be a 3 point shooter into a box that doesn't work for them, and there is a sweet spot in many NBA and college defenses now for an elite mid-range shooter, as defenses have tilted hard towards preventing shots either at the rim or from 3 point range. As Sedz and many others have commented-stats don't tell the entire story-but in general, over the broad range of players, the numbers usually don't lie, even though there are notable exceptions that violate the rule (think DeMar Derozan or Chris Paul in the NBA, for instance).

Well said. This is the most relevant paragraph:

Over the last five years, only two players — Paul (51.7%) and Kevin Durant (51.2%) — have shot 50% or better on at least 300 mid-range attempts. And 147 of the 175 players who’ve attempted at least 300 mid-range jumpers over those five years have shot worse than 45% on those shots, which is like shooting worse than 30% from beyond the arc.

I think even that understates the issue. The league wide effective field goal percentage in the NBA is over 54%, and top offenses are hitting 57%. No one is consistently shooting that percentage from midrange.