ADVERTISEMENT

Wisconsin loss: things I didn't understand

FeliSilvestris

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2004
3,493
125
63
Planet Earth
A few things I didn't understand concerning Wiscy NCG performance (in no particular order) and without claiming I paid close attention to the Wiscy season or even the particulars of the NCG:

1. All 5 starters played 30+ minutes...only two bench players played AT ALL, contributing 23 mins and 7 pts (vs. 3 players, 51 minutes and 18 pts by Duke's bench). One'd think a NCG team would be deeper than that!

2. One of the starters was 5th-year Sr J. Gasser, who played 36 mins. He took ONE SINGLE shot and missed it. Basically Wscy was running a 4-man O the entire game! Yes JG is a solid defender and he pulled down 6 RBs, but still...it's a NCG for goodness sake...can you win a NCG with only 4 O players??? Was Wiscy THAT thin (see above)?

3. Did Wiscy get even ONE basket out of something that vaguely resembled a fast break??? Did they even ATTEMPT such a thing?? From my limited view it would seem that every single time (or just about) Wiscy could do so, they were content to run the half-court O, after allowing Duke to set up its D...yeah it may work while shots are falling, but eventually they stop doing so...you should at least try to get a few "easy" transition baskets now and then (which apparently Wiscy never even tried)....this may have something to do with (1) above...they may not have had the legs....Plus they looked awfully NON-athletic (at least vs Duke)....didn't they remind anyone of some of the better teams under BC (think Kaminsky = Shurna)? Of course NU never fielded a team that successful, but I saw a lot of similarities in the general style of play and players.

4. Wiscy's season stats are INCREDIBLY WEAK (especially for a national finalist)...it seems their strength was scoring-D and even that was only 12th nationally...next best was FG% at 21th nationally...They were NOT a good rebounding, assisting or stealing team...

5. Is BR as good a coach as many claim (see all the above and remember he also recruits)?

P.S. Ironically Gasser has the ONLY triple-double in Wiscy's HISTORY...I'll let you find out against which team.

This post was edited on 4/7 8:41 PM by FeliSilvestris
 
Re point 1), this isn't unusual for them, they really only go 8 deep. But to your point, I was surprised Showalter didn't play. He is one tough guard and had some clutch minutes against Louisville.

Gasser got poked in the eye early on. Who knows if this affected him the rest of the game. His role this season has been as an opportunistic scorer.

Finally, no matter what the stats show, the Badgers WERE 36-3 on the season, with 2 of the losses to Duke (along with the inexplicable loss to Rutgers when Kaminsky was out and Jackson injured). That's pretty damn amazing. I give Ryan credit for establishing a culture and developing players. He doesn't seem to be an in-game coaching genius, but his teams are tough and play team basketball, which is credit to BR. The state of Wisconsin isn't exactly a destination for McDonalds All Americans, and his strategy to keep the best state players seems to be a sound one.

I'd take Bo any day of the week.
 
WIS had 4 losses but the rest of what you say is good. Coaches often shortened their bench quite a bit when it comes to playoffs or championships. Gassar was more in for his D and as far as fast break points, you have to have the opportunity. DUKE's D might have had a lot to do with that.

This post was edited on 4/8 7:55 AM by hdhntr1
 
His approach is a different model based on not getting top 5* recruits but rather solid guys that benefit from his fundamentals based development.
 
Dekker was a 5* exception who probably proves your rule.

I forgot about their loss to MD.
 
He may have been 5* but a look at his other offers shows nothing special and not a one and done type. That said, I found it interesting that not one point was scored by a Frosh this year meaning he tends to sit them for a while till they learn what he wants.
 
The thing I couldn't fathom was Wisconsin's inability to defend the high screen/roll down the stretch. Why was the defending guarding always going over the top, without some kind of even most "show" from the big? Jones did whatever he wanted on that high ball screen. They looked as bad as the Bulls do with Aaron Brooks trying to defend that play -- and that's not good.

I was very unimpressed with Bo's work in the last ten minutes of that game...
 
For a man who likes numbers...

Felis: Wisconsin had the best offense in the country. I don't know what you mean by "season stats are incredibly weak" for a team who had the following stats:

3pt % - #79
Effective Field Goal % - #16
FT% - #12
2pt FG% - #9
Fewest Blocked Shots #6
Fewest Turnovers #1
Adjusted Offensive Efficiency - #1

You suggest they were not a good rebounding team. I don't understand. They were the #4 defensive rebounding team in the country.

http://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjOE
 
Re: For a man who likes numbers...

He was probably using rebounds per game (way too influenced by tempo to be useful) rather than rebounding percentage (a much more useful stat).
 
ESPN Wiscy rankings

Originally posted by Dugan15:
Felis: Wisconsin had the best offense in the country. I don't know what you mean by "season stats are incredibly weak" for a team who had the following stats:
You suggest they were not a good rebounding team. I don't understand. They were the #4 defensive rebounding team in the country.
Don't know about kenpom....he often uses metrics that not everyone agrees with...check out the rankings computed by espn
POINTS PER GAME: 67th OVERALL
REBOUNDS PER GAME: 204th (O rebs I think)
ASSISTS PER GAME 165th
FIELD GOAL PCT 21st

D stats rankings are similar....
POINTS ALLOWED 12th OVERALL
REBOUNDS PER GAME 128th (D rebs I think)
BLOCKS PER GAME 164th
STEALS PER GAME 332nd

Granted, I haven't manually checked espn numbers, but I'd guess they are correct, or at least not too far off.
See link (scroll down a bit).


This post was edited on 4/10 2:35 AM by FeliSilvestris

espn badgers page
 
Re: For a man who likes numbers...


Originally posted by NUcats11:
He was probably using rebounds per game (way too influenced by tempo to be useful) rather than rebounding percentage (a much more useful stat).
Feli's abuse of statistics is legendary. There's lies, damn lies, and Feli's statistics.
 
Re: For a man who likes numbers...

"Stats are for losers".

- P. Fitzgerald
 
ESPN stats, NOT mine

Originally posted by Gladeskat:

Originally posted by NUcats11:
He was probably using rebounds per game (way too influenced by tempo to be useful) rather than rebounding percentage (a much more useful stat).
Feli's abuse of statistics is legendary. There's lies, damn lies, and Feli's statistics.
Except I quoted ESPN stats, without ANY modification or re-interpretation.

Maybe KenPom should try to convince the community at large to stop using per-game stats....he would have a lot of convincing to do, though.

For the record, tempo MIGHT affect the result to a LIMITED extend (say comparing a few teams, with highly varying tempos), or say the difference between being ranked 150 and 165....But these are NATIONAL rankings among 351 teams. Some of Wiscy's rankings are into the hundreds, two hundreds and even three hundreds (when 351 is the worst possible ranking)...To attribute such low rankings to "tempo" is plain unconvincing.

D-REBOUNDS PER GAME 128th
BLOCKS PER GAME 164th
ASSISTS PER GAME 165th
O-REBOUNDS PER GAME: 204th
STEALS PER GAME 332nd

Yeah, tempo is the culprit...right.

P.S. The fact that they were only two treys away from a NC is quite amazing and puzzling...It shows that you can (almost) be a NC while being mediocre or plain bad at several important things (like rebounding, assisting, shot-blocking and stealing)...NU, there is HOPE!!!!
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

When a team wins the regular season conference, conference tournament, finishes 36-4 and makes the national championship game and the stats you're looking at don't add up, here's a suggestion: Maybe you're not looking at the right statistics.

Here's a 2011 article about the use of Pomeroy's statistics by college basketball coaches. The only thing that's surprising is that, given the research resources of a university and free labor, schools hadn't been doing more in this area.

Hope that Stevens guy works out
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

Originally posted by elgatoloco:
When a team wins the regular season conference, conference tournament, finishes 36-4 and makes the national championship game and the stats you're looking at don't add up, here's a suggestion: Maybe you're not looking at the right statistics.
Here's a 2011 article about the use of Pomeroy's statistics by college basketball coaches. ...
Well, I looked at a lot of stats...basically ALL the ones that a MAJOR sports site compiles....like I said, "tempo" can potentially explain SOME of it, but it is impossible to take seriously an argument holding that a team that is ranked, say 200 out of 350 teams in some important stat, should instead be ranked, say, 40 by the same stat because of "tempo"...tempo cannot create a jump like that...from 200 to 180? easily...from 200 to 150? maybe....from 200 to 100? well that would be extremely unlikely...from 200 to 40?? simply forget it!

For example, Wiscy is 332 (bottom 20 of 351!!) in steals per game...are you going to seriously argue that they are a good stealing team, but that "tempo" dropped them all the way to the bottom 20??? Good luck convincing any reasonable person of something like that....the other stats aren't that bad, but the point is the same....tempo cannot explain why 165 teams or so are ranked better than them in other important categories...it simply can't....if nothing else because among the many teams ranked better you can bet there are many slow tempo teams.

This post was edited on 4/10 4:24 PM by FeliSilvestris
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

An added perspective: Bucky was, as you point out, a bottom team in steals per game, but they were #1 in least fouls committed per game, roughly 4 fewer than the 50th best.

Bo says:
If we stay mostly foul free, we can go as long as we want with our best players, 8 of them, rather than going deeper into the bench. Having a consistent lineup on the floor all the time means our pattern offense will be smoother and tighter, (i.e., more precise), and more efficient, by getting better shop opportunities and making fewer turnovers. SO, although you should look for "easy steals" that are clean, DO NOT go impulsively for steals that put you in a position to be called for a foul (or set up an open look for the opponent). Fouls kill.

That's only MY guess as to what Bo says, but the evidence supports it.
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

It's easier to not foul when all your shots go in and there are no rebounds to go after. Which was Wisconsin this year.
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

Originally posted by Medill90:
It's easier to not foul when all your shots go in and there are no rebounds to go after. Which was Wisconsin this year.
And what happened AFTER their shots went in? Didn't their opponents get to run their O, resulting in Wiscy having to DEFEND in order to prevent the opponent from scoring? I reckon most fouls are committed while defending, not while attempting to catch an O-reb.

For the record, their FG % was 48%...quite good of course (21st nationally) but still creating a lot of O-reb opps (after slightly over half their shots).


This post was edited on 4/12 2:39 PM by FeliSilvestris
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

Felis, I would imagine you don't believe what you're writing. It strikes me as particularly odd that you feel that Steals per Game and Blocks per Game are such a detriment when in fact, you've acknowledged that Defensice Points per Game, which you've deemed a strength, is nominally determined by SPG and BPG. So, are they good or bad defensively? They sucked at gross steals per game, but were great at gross defensive points per game.
 
36-4. National runner-up. Those are the only stats that really matter. They were a damned good team that scored at a high rate and didn't turn the ball over. No real rocket science here.
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings


Originally posted by NUCat320:
Felis, I would imagine you don't believe what you're writing. It strikes me as particularly odd that you feel that Steals per Game and Blocks per Game are such a detriment when in fact, you've acknowledged that Defensice Points per Game, ...
Why would I not believe what? The stats reported by ESPN?

The stats are what they are...do you disagree with them? I do NOT compile stats...I just observed them as reported....Do you believe ESPN is reporting wrong numbers for Wiscy? Then contact them about it.

Their w/l record is what it is also. It does not change the stats.

As I said it is simply puzzling that a national finalists 2-treys away from winning the entire tournament would be ranked so badly in several IMPORTANT stat categories. In a way is a good news to a team like NU. One can have a very good season, while not dominating some important aspects of the game (or being plain bad at some).

Pace/tempo can make a significant difference, but not enough to create a jump say from the bottom 20 to the top 20 (out of 351 teams) or even from the 160's to the top 20...Others also play slow tempo.

The stats and record are what they are. Period.
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

Because they made up for it in other areas. Fewest turnovers per game and fewest fouls are two pretty big for them and make up for shortcomings in other areas
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

It isn't all that puzzling if you can accept that the statistics you're looking at aren't important to Wisconsin's philosophy. The stats at ESPN are very limited regarding defense. The advanced stats available at Sports Reference are probably more telling. From what I can tell you're hung up on steals and blocks being critical defensive attributes, when that isn't the case. As Bill Russell once explained beautifully in the Wall Street Journal, defense in basketball is about making the other team uncomfortable.

Here's what the stats say, if I'm reading the stat line correctly: Wisconsin was really, really good at limiting possessions, limiting free throws, limiting 3 point shots relative to 2 pointers, limiting assists as a percentage of field goals, limiting true shooting percentages (which accounts for the varying points awarded for different kinds of shots), and limiting the opponents' offensive rebounds as a percent.

This is actually a pretty consistent story, isn't it? Reduce risk of easy points (free throws, 5v4 situations and offensive rebounds) by staying on the ground and in front of your man, take away the 3 and force offensive players to create shots (which takes many college players out of their comfort zone).
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

Originally posted by elgatoloco:
It isn't all that puzzling if you can accept that the statistics you're looking at aren't important to Wisconsin's philosophy. The stats at ESPN are very limited regarding defense. The advanced stats available at Sports Reference are probably more telling. ...This is actually a pretty consistent story, isn't it? Reduce risk of easy points (free throws, 5v4 situations and offensive rebounds) by staying on the ground and in front of your man, take away the 3 and force offensive players to create shots (which takes many college players out of their comfort zone).
First, it's obvious that whatever Wiscy was doing worked wonderfully for them...They ended in the top 2, while not ranked better than #12 by any traditional stat, and ranked (much) worse than 100 in most traditional categories (even in the bottom few in at least one important one)....If out of their experience you can articulate a general philosophy of play that can be replicated and proven to work, you could have made a major contribution to the game of basketball, something like "The Wisconsin way: how to win nearly every basketball game you play without being exceedingly good at anything, and quite bad at a few important things".

The advanced stats make some sense at an intuitive level, yet they are often based on "guesstimates" because some of the key quantities they need are not actually recorded officially. Take number of possessions. Sounds like an extremely simply concept. Except that it is NOT actually recorded. Hence they have to guesstimate it. How? Like this:
0.5 * ((Tm FGA + 0.4 * Tm FTA - 1.07 * (Tm ORB / (Tm ORB + Opp DRB)) * (Tm FGA - Tm FG) + Tm TOV) + (Opp FGA + 0.4 * Opp FTA - 1.07 * (Opp ORB / (Opp ORB + Tm DRB)) * (Opp FGA - Opp FG) + Opp TOV))
Yes, you are reading it right...that is a team's number of possessions....all the "per possession" stats depend on it.

Each term in that formula can probably be justified through some reasonable argument. But there are probably other ways to do it that are also reasonable. In the end, you do get numbers, but it isn't really like someone has carefully recorded the number of possessions. That is why many "advanced stats" need to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

For the record, the average NCAA-D1 team had about 65 "possessions" per game...Wiscy had about 60. Yes, that is only about 8% less. It does make a difference, but not a very big one.


This post was edited on 4/14 1:38 AM by FeliSilvestris
 
Re: ESPN Wiscy rankings

Since the calculation would be the same for each team, my sense is that the calculation gets you really close to whatever the "actual" number is and that any disagreement is to the right of the decimal. Using statistics like this to represent mathematical certainly is fool's gold. Statistics are useful for trend and relative performance. So, if you're going to argue that Wisconsin's possessions are off by one or two, fine, but they'll be off about the same for all teams. And the point isn't that Wisconsin is No. 1, or No. 2, or No. 3 in a category; it's that they're among the leaders.

If I take your statistics at face value regarding Wisconsin's possessions vs. the average, in a sense you've proven my point. No single statistic will tell the whole story.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT