Analytics

[sedz]

If someone like sedz - no offense intended - has access to these as a college coach outsider, I would imagine CWM has access to this data and even more data. The question is does CWM use it, or use it correctly.

Haha, no offense taken. I only use free public data. Coaching staffs have access to that and can pay for much more. I don't think Wes uses analytics as a primary tool though. There are a couple of obvious clues - players with poor metrics have the highest usage and we run a midrange heavy offense. Brannen was supposed to be an analytics guy, but there is no way he was using metrics to evaluate players. Chris McNeal and Rapolas Ivanauskas had terrible metrics even before they came here. Tari Eason had the best metrics and he rode the bench.

Maybe Corey Evans will help.

[leo from jersey]

This is another astute observation by the great Yogi

1. "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

Do they still play as they practice?

[leo from jersey]

If someone like sedz - no offense intended - has access to these as a college coach outsider, I would imagine CWM has access to this data and even more data. The question is does CWM use it, or use it correctly.

I was posting tongue in cheek. One other view. Just having stats doesn't automatically = wins or makes one a better coach. There is a major human factor. Stat prediction often disappear in the heat of a game and a coach must, adapt, improvise and overcome.

: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Yogi Berra

[London 'Cat]

Does CWM have access to those analytics? If he does/did he really has no excuses for further failure except for coaching or injuries.

If someone like sedz - no offense intended - has access to these as a college coach outsider, I would imagine CWM has access to this data and even more data. The question is does CWM use it, or use it correctly.

[leo from jersey]

I thought about doing that, but final AP is a better proxy for what most people judge a season on, which is tournament results. Plus this shows that algorithms are better than human voters at predicting their own poll. There's just so much information at our disposal, and computer models are now better able to sort through it than humans are.

Does CWM have access to those analytics? If he does/did he really has no excuses for further failure except for coaching or injuries.

[sedz]

Here is how Torvik's preseason rankings compared to the AP last season for all teams in either the AP's preseason or final rankings. Torvik was closer on 21, the AP was closer on 12.

Team	AP Pre	Torvik Pre	AP Final
Kansas	1	4	37
Alabama	2	9	6
UConn	3	13	29
Houston	4	1	2
Iowa St	5	3	17
Gonzaga	6	8	23
Duke	7	2	3
Baylor	8	15	--
UNC	9	5	--
Arizona	10	10	15
Auburn	11	7	4
Tennessee	12	6	5
TX A&M	13	12	19
Purdue	14	17	14
Creighton	15	14	30
Arkansas	16	35	20
Indiana	17	30	--
Marquette	18	25	38
Texas	19	11	--
Cincinnati	20	27	--
Florida	21	36	1
UCLA	22	24	32
Kentucky	23	23	12
Ole Miss	24	38	18
Rutgers	25	19	--

Team	AP Pre	Torvik Pre	AP Final
St Johns	27	16	11
Texas Tech	29	20	8
Michigan St	32	18	7
Michigan	34	34	10
BYU	35	28	13
Clemson	41	44	22
Wisconsin	45	40	16
St Marys	46	39	24
Louisville	47	62	21
Maryland	55	48	9
Memphis	--	32	25

Re compring AP and Torvik Pre, it might be interesting to consider Torvik final as well.

I thought about doing that, but final AP is a better proxy for what most people judge a season on, which is tournament results. Plus this shows that algorithms are better than human voters at predicting their own poll. There's just so much information at our disposal, and computer models are now better able to sort through it than humans are.

[sedz]

I'll be analyzing the transfers we're connected with and using BPM as the main measuring stick. Here's a quick and dirty grading scale:

10+: All-American, top 20 nationally
8-9: All Conference
6-7: Star Player
4-5: Major Rotation Player
2-3: Role Player or Specialist
1 or Below: Project

In the portal I'm mainly looking to bring in 4+ BPM players. Mitchell was our only guy in the Star Player category. It would be nice to get another star, or for Mitchell to increase his usage and move up to All Conference Caliber.

If you add up the BPMs for all five positions, you get the team's efficiency margin. Kenpom uses that for his NetRtg that he sorts teams by. Duke's was 39.3 this year, or an average 8 BPM per position. They are basically running out an all conference player at all 5 positions.

Our NetRtg this year was 14.9, or an average 3 BPM per position. We're running out a bunch of role players. We had one star in Mitchell, but we also had a bunch of minutes from 1 or below BPM players that brought the average down. If we can average 4 BPM at each position, that will push our NetRtg up to 20, which would comfortably be in the field. That should be our goal.

[sedz]

An average rebounding team has an OReb rate of 30%. Spread across a traditional roster it looks like:
C: 10%
PF: 8%
SF: 6%
SG: 4%
PG: 2%

A top 50 rebounding team, which we should aim for, has an OReb rate of 34%. One way to do that is get an elite rebounding big with a 14% OReb rate. That's what Texas Tech Does. Or you can play two bigs who get 11% each. That's what Clemson does. Both of those will give you an extra 4%. But as we see in the portal, good players with even a 9% OReb rate are hard to find, much less 11% or 14%. Another strategy is to boost the guard spots. That's what Illinois does. Their distribution looks like:
C: 11%
PF: 7%
SF: 7%
SG: 5%
PG: 5%

That adds up to 35%, which makes them a top 20 rebounding team despite getting an average 18% from the frontcourt. And I think we could have done that this year. We got about 18% combined from Aziz and Mitchell. But we only got 2.6% from Simas and 2.3% from Jizzle. Even without Aziz on the floor we could have had a 34% rebounding team:
Mitchell: 9%
Reed: 6%
Skillings: 8%
Griffith: 7%
Day Day: 4%

[sedz]

I'll be analyzing the transfers we're connected with and using BPM as the main measuring stick. Here's a quick and dirty grading scale:

10+: All-American, top 20 nationally
8-9: All Conference
6-7: Star Player
4-5: Major Rotation Player
2-3: Role Player or Specialist
1 or Below: Project

In the portal I'm mainly looking to bring in 4+ BPM players. Mitchell was our only guy in the Star Player category. It would be nice to get another star, or for Mitchell to increase his usage and move up to All Conference Caliber.

[sedz]

Skillings, Mitchell, and Reed are more than capable of slashing to the rim if we run any kind of off ball down or flare screens on the wings. But we don't. They're all capable ball handlers, none of them turn it over much. Philon and Nelson have higher turnover rates than any of our wings but they get to the rim all the time.

This is a constant issue with Wes teams, it doesn't matter who is on the roster.

[longtimefan]

I'm firmly on the coaching is the problem train. It was apparent the first time we took the floor this season that our philosophy hadn't changed. I posted this when we were up 23 at the half in game 1:

Our high usage players don't try to get to the rim, so they don't score efficiently, don't get fouled, and don't draw second defenders to allow dump off passes or putbacks. We don't put pressure on defenses. Allowing your players to throw up a 37% midrange jumper every other minute is a coaching choice. Bringing a second defender to the ball with pick n roll is a coaching choice. Tailoring your offense for jumpshots by guards with effective field goal percentages under 48% is a coaching choice. Counting on offensive rebounds when you play two small guards and an unathletic wing (all with offensive rebounding rates under 3%) is a coaching choice.

Wes needs to hire someone who can teach him how to implement basic basketball analytics or we'll continue to have a bad offense no matter how much toughness and effort we show. It's 2025. Scoring this season is 1.07 points per possession, the highest it's ever been and up from 1.02 just a few years ago. Offensive philosophy is being pushed forward by analytical minds like Nate Oats, Dennis Gates, and Mark Pope. Some of the old heads like Bruce Pearl and Mark Few have adapted. The rest are gone or get by with a top 5 defense (Sampson, Pitino, Barnes). Our defense isn't that good and we're playing offense from a different era. It's not good enough. We have to get with the times.

The problem is we don’t have long guys who can handle the ball.

[sedz]

Alabama has taken just 228 midrange shots this year, exactly half the amount we have taken.

Alabama has shot 785 free throws compared to our 426. Their 6'1 PG got to the FT line 209 times by himself, more than 4 times as many attempts as any of our guards.

Jizzle has taken 153 midrange shots this year, 3 times as many as any player on Alabama.

These shot choices are determined by the coach.

[sedz]

I'm firmly on the coaching is the problem train. It was apparent the first time we took the floor this season that our philosophy hadn't changed. I posted this when we were up 23 at the half in game 1:

My concern remains the midrange shot. I think Jizzle put up 5 in the first half? With long guys who can handle the ball, we should be trying to get rim looks every play.

Our high usage players don't try to get to the rim, so they don't score efficiently, don't get fouled, and don't draw second defenders to allow dump off passes or putbacks. We don't put pressure on defenses. Allowing your players to throw up a 37% midrange jumper every other minute is a coaching choice. Bringing a second defender to the ball with pick n roll is a coaching choice. Tailoring your offense for jumpshots by guards with effective field goal percentages under 48% is a coaching choice. Counting on offensive rebounds when you play two small guards and an unathletic wing (all with offensive rebounding rates under 3%) is a coaching choice.

Wes needs to hire someone who can teach him how to implement basic basketball analytics or we'll continue to have a bad offense no matter how much toughness and effort we show. It's 2025. Scoring this season is 1.07 points per possession, the highest it's ever been and up from 1.02 just a few years ago. Offensive philosophy is being pushed forward by analytical minds like Nate Oats, Dennis Gates, and Mark Pope. Some of the old heads like Bruce Pearl and Mark Few have adapted. The rest are gone or get by with a top 5 defense (Sampson, Pitino, Barnes). Our defense isn't that good and we're playing offense from a different era. It's not good enough. We have to get with the times.

[sedz]

UC = 2-8 in Big 12 ... my analytics say that isn't good

Indeed, lol.

Leo asked about our conference only numbers earlier. Well here's our offensive ranks.

Offensive efficiency #16
Offensive rebounding #15
Free throw rate #16
Free throw shooting #14
2pt shooting #14
3pt shooting #16
Assist rate #13

Gross. We're bottom 3 in almost everything that matters and a distant last in overall efficiency. The only thing we do ok is take care of the ball, where we rank #7.

[GoBearcats31]

UC = 2-8 in Big 12 ... my analytics say that isn't good